1 y‘;;:r}i. , @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.199 of 2002 Annellant Nankuram son of Sumeshwar, Caste Teli, aged about 35 years, Occupation Cultivation resident of village Salka PS Premnagar, Tah Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) Claimant VERSUS Respondents United lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd., Through Non-applicants Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir Ambikapur Distt Surguja (CG) Insurer 2 Baba @ Rajeshwar S/o Narmada Prasad Yadav, aged about 28 years occupation Driver, resident of village Tikarapara Premnagar, PS Premnagar, Tah Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) Driver 3 Ghanshyamdas Agrawal, Sio Dhaniram Agrawal, aged about 35 years, occupation Business, resident of Village Premnagar, PS Premnagar, Tah Surajpur Distt Surguja (CG) Owner Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri-Dasarath Gupta, teamed counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (10m July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Bajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsei for the patties are heard on admission. é) Appeilant/olaimant Nankuram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motor x . Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Camp Court at Surajpur (for short ‘the :l'ribunal') vide award dated 26.11.2061, passed in Claim Case No.125/200‘l. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/— claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.05.1999, the'Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant! claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. l l l j, 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certmcate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : ‘t “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. .Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor The Tribunal has determined he physical disability at 15 Qer cent on the baSis of the eposntion of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a lust and fair compensation. The High Cowt erred in disturbing the W same and enhancino the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” reported in 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years‘ It is not known as to Whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 8) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant l claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liahle to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. / /J/ X‘ Sd/- Sdl— CHIEF JUSTICE . e S‘m“ K‘m‘ar sinha \l\ Judge w i \ i SUDbU " ’ ' ’ ""’ W" ” ’W"