?- H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Ctaimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 694 of 2010 Punau Yadav aged about 28 years, S/o Budharu Yadav, r/o Village - Kota Basti Kota Ward PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, r/o Village Bhakela Gadadih PS Magarlod, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG) Respondent No.1 2 Ram Kumar Vaishnav, S/o Ghansyam Das Vaishnav, r/o Village Magarlod, Tahsil Kurud, Djstrict Dhamtari (CG) Respondent No.2 3 Bajaj Alliance Generai Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Jivan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Respondent No.3. (Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehidesAct.1988) Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (14tnJuIy,2010) &.. <t 1 "Y^y ''^^^ The fotiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appeliant - Punau Yadav is seeking enhancement of the CQmpensation awarded by the 10th Additjona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30-03-2010, passed in Claim Case No.29/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- clajmed 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 03-03-2007, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.16,203/- 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 Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.16,203/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent disability. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the 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. k^^y "^'sy 6) 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- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the HighCourt 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. MJtra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we ailow 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 : ^;n -"•- '^ '•A ^ 4 "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 certjficate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not^een examined, Untess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability 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 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 application, 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we 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 summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sdf- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmmi