^o 4\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEBf GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc Appeal (C\ No.294/2008 Apoellant Claimant Before the Tribunal Respondents Non-applicants Before the Tribunal Khemraj Thakur, aged about 24 years, S/o Nemsingh Thakur, R/o Near Sitla Mandir, Nayapara, PS Gobra Nayapara, Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS Chowa Ram @ Shiva Satnami, aged about 22 years, S/o Bansj Satnami, R/o Village : Chaubey Bagha, PS Rajim, DisttRaipur(CG) Driverofthe offendina vehide Smt Kusum Bai Jagne, aged about 50 years, W/o Punarad Ram Jagne, R/o Sadar Bazar Road Nayapara (Rajim)PS Gobra Nayapara, Distt Raipur (CG) Owner ofthe offendina vehicle New Indian Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional OfRce No.2 Bajrang Market, RDA Building, Raipur (CG) Insurer ofthe offendina vehicte Memo of Misc Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicteAct Present: Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 &2. Shri Anand Gupta. counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (7th September, 2009) The following order of the Court was pe®sed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Khemraj Thakur is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.12.2007 passed in Claim Case No.3/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-, ctaimed by the appellant / claimant byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.79,433/- as compensation along with interest @ @% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion till the date of aetual payment. 3) Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awardlng low compensation of Rs.79.433/- only. though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witne^es including himself (AW/1 Khemraj, AW/2 Prakash Kumar Dhruv) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellanVdaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustalned by theappellant/clalmant in the motor accident and the facithat those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examfning the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence /y 'ia \^ <^b I S •^ ^ for the assessment of the compensation came up fbr conslderation before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it 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 High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certiflcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabilfty to be 45 percent. The High Court committed qross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined thephvsteal disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and ©nhancingthe compensatjon. 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." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the following observations Sn para 11 : ^^ '^ j 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 appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two yeare after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissible in evldence. Whetherthe disabiUty at 60% was calculated on the basls of the 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 such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Trtbunat or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In 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 thefirsttime." 7) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those cartificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. :.".'."^ -:-'\. ~{^~^&^ f 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge padma