•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISEON BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRIRAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUMIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeai No, 917 of 2006 r !&- APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS Anjori S/o M'anglu. Cast - Kewat aged about 35 'y'ears, occupatlon Agricuiturist & Labour R/o Viilage Lochan P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah. Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus Janak Ram Sahu S/o Bipatram Sahu occupation Transporting R/o. Tikarapara Raipur at present address Kol!ari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya, Tah. Kawardha, Dist. Kablrdham (C.G.) National insurance Company Ltd. Through Board Manager Board Office Akashganga Complex Supeia Bhilai dist. Durg (C.G.) MEMORANDU^ OF APPEAL SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACTJ^BS Present: Shri Ram Nivas Pandey, iearned counsel for the appeilant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Sudeep Agraw^i, iearned counsel for respondent ' No.2. ORDER (19th August, 2009) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Appeliant - Anjori Is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Clalms ^^^^^, ---^ ^%F ^ Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 29.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.23/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,350/- clalmed by the appeilant/ claimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of t'ne Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.04.2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.19,445/- as compensation to the claimant aiong wlth interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tili the date Qf actua! payment, on the insurer's failure to pay compensatjon within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the award. 3. Shri Ram Nivas Pandey, iearned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently arguedifhat the Tribuna! has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.19,445/-onjy though the appetiant/ claimant sustained muitipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabiiity. 4. Before the Tribunai, the appetlant/ daimant examined hlmseif alone in support of his claim and for the reasons best known to him, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any' permanent disabiiity. 5. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctorwho issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration IC before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. ThlrupaE Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "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 rety on the disability certlficate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatlon by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certiflcate vvas reiected bv the TribunaS for non-examjnatlon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined!the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and avvarded a iust and falr compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent- ciaimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready 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 305, reiterated the same view with the foiiowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is npt knovvn as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certifteate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certlficate examlned himseSf, it ivas not admlssjble in evidence. Whether the disabiJlty at 60% was calcutated on the basis of the provlsions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwlse is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does 4 not appear that the contentions raised before us had ejther been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunat as aiso the Hsgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties.in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appSicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act whlch, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7. in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar ailas Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appelianV claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certlficates, cannot be taken Into consideratlon for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8. VVe, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal fiied by the appeiiant/ claimant for enhancement Of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- ChiefJustice 1 Sd/- i Sunil Kumar Sinha ^ Judge