HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CQRAM: HON5BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. KON'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. AppeSSant Appiicant Respondents Non-applicants. ^^? MAJONo. 974 of 2009 Bhagwat Raut S/o Dondul, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Chhindnor, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS Sunii Gupta S/o Chhotelal Gupta, aged about 28 years, R/o / Dewangan Para, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (Owner & driver of vehicle Mahindra Commander Jeep No. C.G. 18/ZD- 0178) The New India insurance Company Ltd. Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (fnsurance Company of v'ehicte Mahindra Commander Jeep No. C.G. 18/ZD-0178) Umesh Karma, S/o Sukoo karma, aged about 23 years, R/o Harampara, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver of the Vehicle Mahindra Max UP-93J-9184) Virendra Bhan Shrivastava, S/o Unkown, R/o Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Mahindra Max U P-93 J-9184) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Insurance Company of the Vehicle Mahindra Max UP-93 J- 9184). Appea! under Sectlon 173 of Motor Vehjcles Act. 1988 Present: Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant. ^—l ORDER (22nd July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By aliowing I.A.No.01/2009, the appellant is granted exemption from filing certified copy ofthe impugned award. 2) Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 3) Appellant/claimant Bhagat Raut is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accidents Clalms Tribunal, Dantewada (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 103/2008. 4) As against the compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- claimed by the appellant/ ciaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.05.2006, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the c!aim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the appeliant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,000/- only though the appellant/ ciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 6) For the reasons best known to the appellanV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeltant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 7) 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 the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 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 disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant Is altowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been wlthdraw/n." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar ailas Raju v. Yudhvir SIngh and another, reported in 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 hospitai 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 examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was catculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is aiso 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 materiaEs 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 fade has no application, the same, in our oplnion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9) !n 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 a!ias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificates produced by the appeilant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the 6ompensation awarded by the Tribunat. ,r'"^ ,^^ •Y"^y :~v".-^.-:^.rs' subbu 11) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^'