HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR DEVSSEONBENCH Coram : HQN'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SSNHA, J. 3?]^^ -sptoff IVIisc. Appeal (C) No. 1443 of2008 7fFM ^?R 3TT. .3?c?^ ^R, ^i 35 ^ ^!T cT!^r STiqte?, f^IRft TFT fic?T d?. q STHT flo?T toT Rdl^^ (^'.'T.) 31^!^4?ltul 1. ^^ 3TT. m ton ^T ^ ^31 28 ^, ^<x3<(i4l<iui Fl^i^l wcf)uw ^ w^ ^\^^w STHT ^ ^. Rdl^H^ (^.7T.) 2. ^ ff??K ftcff ^RTT^FT m^, torft ^T ^FS HR?iT ^THT ?fRcTr, ^?. ^ toT; j^<?llti^ (^.7T.) 3. "l^ atrR^ecf ^!^1^"H cR^ fN^ ^TT ^ ^? ^RT Tfto "^cT ^fMT ^ ^TFF ^f '?^ l^oit^^ (^.7T.) SVJEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTORVEHiCLE ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsef for the appeilant. ORDER (17m September, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appeitant is heard on admission. 2. Appeiiant/ ciaimant Sonva Kumhar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additionai Motor (^ Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, Biiaspur (fbr short !the Tribunai') vide award dated 01.10.2008, passed in Ciaim Case No. 125/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.31,50,000/- claimed by the appeliant/ ciaimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for thre injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.01.2007, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.2,000/- oniy though the appellant/ claimant sustained multipje serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 5. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, neither the appellant himseif examined before the Tribuna! nor any doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant/ daimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. The question whether the medicai certiflcate produced by the ciaimant 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 vs. P. Thirupat ^^^"' j^il.'i ^, '"":"^"' • '^ ^ \sy Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein itwas observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent-ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justifscatiQn for the Hlgh Court to rety on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatlng the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hlah Court commltted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the TribunaJ for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvslca! disabflitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDQsition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a lust and falr comDensatlon. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequentiy, we aliovv this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Clasms Trlbuna!. The respondent- ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 7. The Apex Gourt in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju vs. Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported in (2908) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foltowing observations in para 11: " 11. The certificate sn question in this case was obtained affer tvvo years. It js 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 ptace is not known. The author of the said certjficate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certifjcate examined himself. it vvas not admisslble in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. Et is aEso 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 /^' ^ •^. 1 i ^^' 1:- 4 High Court. The Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiafs brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contentjon having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, In our opinlon, ex fade has no appjlcation, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8. 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 alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appejlant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining himseif and the Doctors who had issued those certificates; 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 compensatjon awarded bythe Tribunal. 10. The appeal filed by the appellant/ ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismlssed summarily. -—" Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nsmmi