,< ]3E^! HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Claimant Misc. Appeal No. 1031 of 2005 Charuchand, aged about 40 years, son of late Daulat pam, occupation government service, resident of village Namnakala, P.S. and Tah. Ambikapur (Dehat), distt. Surguja C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. The United India Ins. Co. Limited, through its Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (Insurer of the alleged vehicle) 2. The General Manager, Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit, near Akaswani, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tah. Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (Vehicle Owner) 3 Parasnath, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Nanku Upadhyay, occupation service, Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, resident of D.C. Bunglow Road, Ambikapur, tUstt. Surguja C.G. (Driver of the vehicle) 4 B.P. Songariya, aged about 45 years, son of Shri B.L. Songariya, occupation service, resident of village Kedarpur, P.S. and Tah. Ambikapur, distt. Surguja ::":"1^ <;; K^Bla v£^ef A No. 1031 of 2005 (Chhattisgarh) (Scooter owner bearing regn. No. MOL/1760) 5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ambikapur, distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer of the Scooter bearing regn. No. MOL/1760) Aepeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Neeraj Chaubey, counsel for respondents No.2&3. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER >nd (22"°September,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06-05-2005, .passed in Claim Case No.31/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- 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 08-05-2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum B yi^-i •i'^. '^' '^ "? li <;li'siisi;i' 1 1 'Zl":slj/ :!:';-s^' MANo. 1031 of 2005 cy iiltll from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Sushil Dubey,. learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 39%. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.1 the United India Insurance Company Limited and respondent No.5 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurers of the two vehicles Jeep and the Scooter on which the claimant was travelling as pillion-rider, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself alone as AW/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and 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. 6) The question whether-.^he medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate 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 ^'^ ;1 ; .-^^ M.A. No. 1031 of 2005 ^ al'BNBjj Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6as 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 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 Hiah Court committed arosserror 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 the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "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 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 examinea himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on MA.No. 1031 of 2005 the basis 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 Tribunal 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 applicafion, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by theappellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, in 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), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. ... Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge nimmi ^8Bi®sE!a^^8sr-tel''STiniinnnririn