v^ .^ ^•' ^ HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D1VSSION BENCH CORAJVJ: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Appellant Cjaimant Respondents M.A.(C)No.1304of2007 Jagjivan Das, S/o Sarju Das Panika aged about 22 years R/o Vjlfag.eKherbahi, Poiice Station - Mahamaya Post - Narratola, Tahsi! - Baiod District Durg Versus 1. Sunil Yadav @ Sinu Yadav, S/o Rajdhari Ysdav, Aged about 32 years R/o Vii'i'ayS Dornapal, PS Dornapal, Distt - Dantewada (CG) (Driver) 2. Ravi Shankar Shukla, S/o BN Shukla, Aged about 45 years, R/o Main Road, Dornapal PS Dornapal, Distt Dantewada (CG) (Owner) 3. The New India insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager Power House Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) (Insurance Company) Miscellaneous Appeai u/s173 ofthe IVIotorVehiclesAct. 1988 Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (9th March, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Jagjivan Das is seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Add'rtional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.07.2007 passed in Claim Case No.06/2006. (g) .y, 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,80,000/-, 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 06.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,424/- as compensation aiong wlth interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Vlshnu Koshta, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.50,424/- only, though the appellant / claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himseif alone as AW/1 in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor wds examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries saidto have been sustained by the appellant/claimant In the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent dlsability. 5) The question whether the 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 thecase of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation 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 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross 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 the phvsical dlsabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancSnq 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." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case o,f Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the following observatlons in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civll Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was jssued 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 examined himself. it was not ^^-^1'%. ^ \^-J ^"^•^sss^ admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiljty at 60% was calculated on 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 certiflcate. 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 appllcation, 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) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the TribunaJ wlthout examining the Doctor who had issued the said certiflcate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement. of the compensation jn the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Qaief Justice Sd/- ' R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma