•^ HM3H COURT OF GHHATriSQARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBiNCff CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJ6EV GIH»TA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAI^R. J E Misc Appeal (C\ No. 885 of 2008 Appellant Mahavir Kewat, S/o Dauva Ram Kewat, Claimant agedaboutiayears.R/oVillageTurma Police Station Kasdol, Tah Batoda Bazar.distt Ralpur (CG) VERSUS Resoondent Kranti Kumar Sahu, S/o Narrotam Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o Vlllage Turma Police Statin Kasdol Tah Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur (CG) MiscellaneousADpeal underSectton 173 of MotorVehictesAct Present : Shri PushpendraKumar Patel, coureel for the appellant. Shri MD Sharma, counsetforthe respondent. ORDER (30th June. 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appellant/ claimant Mahavir Kewat is seeking enhaneement of the compensatlon awarded by the First Addittonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short the Tribunal') vide awarddated 25.04.2008, passed in Ctaim Case No.23/2007. ^^^'^^^ -?- ^i^ff^^^ ^ ^-..sy ':^^^^r' 7A 2) As agatnst the compensatlon of R8.5,00,000/-, elaimed by the appellant/claimant, by fillng a clalm petitlon under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehfoles Act, for the injuries sustalned by hlm in the motor accident on 21.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation along wtth interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitlon till the date of adual payment. 3) Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, leamed coun^l for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low compensation of Rs.40,000/- only, though the appellanVclaimant sustained multlpte serious injuries inctudtr^i fractures in the motor accident resultlr^ in permanent disabUity. 4) Shri MD Sharma, leamed counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has erred in hokting the respondent to pay compensation to the claimant and in awarding excessive sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the clsrtmant. 5) Before the Tribunal the clalmant examhied as many as two witnesses induding himself (AW/1 Mahavir Kewat and AW/2Vyas Narayan) In support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the daimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVdalmant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabUity. 6) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the daimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as subetantive evidence ^ •^ for the assessment of the compensation came up tor consideration before the Apex Court tn the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2008) 12 8CC 189, wherein tt was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed counsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Hlgh Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rety on the disabjlity certlflcate Issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treaUng the injury as permanent disaNlity to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court commltted aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhater Rectelv's medieal certjficate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsteal disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis ofthe deDositlon of DrXM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the aame and enhancinp the compensation. Consequentty, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is altowed to wlthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been wlthdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in ttie case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvhr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 308, reiterated the same view with the foltowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question tn this case was obtained after two yeare. It is not known as to ^ whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospttal treated the appellant. On what baste, such a certificarte wa®issued two years after the acGkterrt took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unle^ the author of the certificate examtned himself. it was not admissibte in evidence. Whetherthedisabiljty at 60% was cateulated on the basis of ttie provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to Issue svoh a certificate. It even does not app^ir that the contentions raised before us had either been rajsed before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiate brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contentlon havlng been raised in regard to the applteabllity of the Workmen's Compensation Act whteh, In our opinion, exfacie has no applteation, ttwsame, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be ralsed for the first time." 8) The medical certificate produced by the clafmant bcfore the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued that certiftcate in view of the above quoted dfcta of the Apex Court in ttie cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirypal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Ktanar allas Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into conslderation for enhancement of the compensation in the 9) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancemeiit of the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal. padma 5 ap L 10) The appeal, filed by the appellant/clatmant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dfsmiased and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge