HIGH COUKI' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVl8ION BENCI ‘éORAM: 'HON'BLE sHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, cJ. HoN'BLE SHRI sumL KUMm sml-IA, J. Misc. Appeal Na. 777 of 2005 ‘ Appellant Abdul Hamid Khan slo Abdul Majid Applicant Khan aged about 35 years Caste, u; ” ‘ Musum rlo Patharaguda Rehman Gali, .Jagdalpur,‘ district Ba‘stér,C.G. VERSUS \ . Respundents’ 1. Budhram, S/ov Peda, caste Muria, Non-applicants aged about 33 years r/o Gandhi Nagar Police Statmn Sukma dist. Dantewada C G Shaikh Munawar Ali, slo Shaikh Suieman Ali R/o Patnampara Sukma Ponce Station Sukma, dist Dantewada C G ‘ 3. The Onentai insutance Company Limited Branch Office Jagdalpur. Distnct Bastar C G MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH!¢I,,,E$ ACT a Present: Smt FouZIa Mirza and Ms Farah Minna: counsel for the appellant . Shn Sudhir Agrawal and Shn P Dutta counsel for respondent No 3 ’ (3" March, 2011) The following order of the “Court was passed Mby Rajeev Gupta, our. j “ ciaimant - Abdul Hamid Khan is seeking Appellant] the compensation awatded by the Third Additionat 7 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jagdalpur (for shun 'the Trimnai’) » vide award dated 31 .01 .ZOOQ, passed in 9Iaim Case Nam/2004. 2) As against the compensation of R563,65,000I— maimed by ciaimajnt Abdul v enhancement of Hamid Khan, ‘ by tiling a claim ,paition under If Section“1‘66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by 7' ’ v- him in. the motoraccident on 15.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a >' totai sum of Rs.2,0QOI- as c‘ompensation. 3) jg Srnt. Fouzia Mirza and Ms. Farah Minhazi ieamedcounsei . for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding - Iow accident compensation ~ of Rs.2,000{- only though the appellanticlaimant sustained rnuitipie serious injuries in the motor tw. v 4) V . Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta teamed counsel for, respondent No 3 the Onental insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the mums - sustained by the claimant in the motor accident were simple in nature, the compensatton of Rs 2 OGOI- awarded by the Tnbunai B v iust and proper compensation In the facts and circumstances of the ' present case? ’ 5) a» Before the Tribunai, the claimant examined-himself atone .in support of his claim For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunat to estahtish the nature of the injuries proved‘to have been sustained by the ciatmant in the lvx motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. in fact, the Tribunal considering max-ray report wherein it was mentioned tha'on x-ray examination no bony injury was detected assessed the compensation treating the injunes sustained by the claimant as simple in nature ifs) The question whether the medics! certificate producedbythe claimant before the Tribunai without examiningthe Doctor who ' issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence forthe assessment pf thecompensation came up f0! consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.Pi SRTO v. P. Thirupal r Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 scc 189, Wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing ieamed counsel for the respondent— claimant who made an attempt to supportthe order of the ‘High Court, we tind that there was no justification-for the :High Court to rely on the disability certifcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent dis abiiity to be 45 per cent ‘ The High Court committed gross error m ottertooking the * act that Dr Sudhakar Reddys medical certificate was erected by the Tribunal for non-exammatton of that doctor: v he Tribunal has determined the‘gbxgicaisdisabiiit! at '15 r 7 ‘Qr cent on the basis of the gegosihon of Qr K M Mftra an r ' warded a gust and fair comgensation The High Cog erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation Consequentiy, we aitow this appeat set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by tho Tribunal, if it has not airead been withdrawn.” w y ‘ Z) The Apex Court In a iecent dictum in the case of Rapsh “Kumar alias Raju v Yudhvur Stngh and another repbrted m r (2008) 7 scc 306,. reiterated the same View wnth the follovmng >- qbservations in para 11 : “1 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as tozwhether the Civii Surgeon of the hosoitai treated the appellant. 0n whet u 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 Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself it was not admlsSlble in rewdence Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the baSis of the prowsions of the Workman s Compensation Act or otherWise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue suchsa 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 I proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties in absence of any contenhon havmg been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workman svCompensation '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) The medical certihcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor whohad issued the said certificate,- in view of the'above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTc v. P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot -v l giJf~T ’5 w ‘ be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation o in the case. E 9) We,rtherefore, do not fmd any scope for enhancement of the :, compensation awarded by the Tribunal. § 10) The appeai tiled by the appellantfciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is v hereby dismissed. u . t /)# 11) No order as to costsQL sd/- Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha K 7 Chief Jusu'ce' Judge l * subbu