CORAM: HW OELE SHRI RAJEV E GA‘ UPT CJ .. ' HON’E SHRE RANGN CDRAAR BL ATH HANK,J M.A.No. 1040 of 2005 , ima er ai @ Khedia i adav bou R/o Vilage w ah tt naon !(CG; Versus Gaint ia Matra Rikham atry Bshu y Sio ir Ma r aou ear (Drhr, R/o (Mara) aged bt 23 ys ie) Vllage G Po ttin an Dtt i —- hoti, iice Sao Lji, is Ba§aha psent n at ur gt, fe‘iy fesidig Pana Parani ak anra oa va Naar, oke Statia BuEha N Mhhtra) Sima Rumri, io ’am esh Pa bt 5 i! er) io Mn Mata S Naga P Lakgan, kg ur rashra) (Mahat ata ranc Copany it, ardhan a 1) ur, ~ ru ranch anager, atnai Thogh B M Nio nn Cop Kmt Lin, tsurace many ahi e Rajngaon - hek S unsei f a S Dasarat oun r a , l 2 arch,20 ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION EENCH Shrti Ho B Ba Y aged at 47 years l Reaahan T 8: Dis Rajnadg Appeiiant ma d Na Bhda Rd, Soapni g P n hdna, égpur (aaras hrti aika ‘W R Nar ndy agd aou 4 years (Vehce Own R ii atnami r, ost adj PS Laadanji Nagp Respondents Nionl insue m Limed 19 a Vm Nagr (271 08 Nagp and ifMisceiianeous Appeai uls173 of the Motor VehiclesAct Present bhri Abhis harma co orthe ppellant hrl h Gupta csei fo respondent No 3 ‘ORDER (2m M10) h foiiowin orde of \he Court w passed by Rjev G, ae upta C.J. Apbn e Bai i en of e eilat ,Shrimati Hro s sekig enhancement th compnsation a y Mr Acrdnt aim Tribal e warded b the oto ce Cls un Rarngn s e Tril) vrd a dad ‘ andao (for hort ‘th buna e ward te 5.2005, pass in iaim ae o.3/200. ' 2.05 ed C Cs N13 2 ‘ Aéaga e compti f R d y ) sinst th ensaon o s.3,25,000I-, claime b the appellnt/claimant by fiing a9cim p under Sc 1 of a l la etition etion 66 t Mtor Vhicles ct forthe njues ust y her t m he o e A iri sained b in he otor acciden n .2003, t bUl rdd a ta sum t :o 03.06 he Trina awae otl of Rs.13,8/— acpensatio t t clin along ith intest @ 00 somn o he amat w er 6% per am fr d of f h eit nnu om the ate iling of te claim ption tiil the date f aua yen o ctl pamt. Shri Abish m lened onl r he apellnt o ; 3) hek Shara, ar cuse fo t pa hty agued e comsat o 38l a veemeni r that th penion f Rs.‘1,00— warded t rbul is too ow a th pelnt man td by he Tina l, s e apla i clait susaine mut erios jur includi ts th motor cide lipie su inies ng fracure in e acnt W relti n erane isat te extent of 0%. sung i pmnt dbiliy to h 4 Bfore the Tibn e xa a y as to 4) e rual. th claimant emined s man w its uding erself W/l Shrat Hero Ba n / wneses incl h (A imi i ad AW2 Dhaa I suppo of h ai F t ss est now o null) n rt er clm or he reaon b kn t th apnt lma o octor as exd bfore e pella / caint n d w amine e the Tbal t abish the te f e is sid hav n riun o estl naur o th injure a to e bee sstaied by te aan/caima i th mor acoldt and e un h ppelltlnt n e to en th ct tht thse Injuries sud in a enent disbility fa a o relte ny prma a Te‘ g r t as 5) The question whether the medical certificate 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 Ap‘ex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal 'Reddy reported in (20M) 12 SCC 1&9, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : ,‘16. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent — claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Hldh Court we find that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and’enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability tot be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Redd/V’s medical certificate was re‘iected by the Tribunal :for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the ghvsical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded aiust and. faircomgensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancmg 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 "* 5) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Ratesh Kumar alias Raju Vs YudhVIr Singh and another, reported in (2&8) ? $$G 3&5, 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 tieated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence Whethet the disabiiity at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Wcrkmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise ‘is not knswn. 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 befote us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso 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 appiicabiiity 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.” 7) reiterated the same View with the foiiowing in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupai Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kurnar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certiticate and the disability certifrcate produced 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. 8) comgensaiion awarded by the Tribunai. 9} The appea We, therefora do not find any scope for enhancement of the §, filed by the appenant/ciaimant for enhancement of the hereby dismissed. is liabfa to be dismissed and is ‘r / 1‘ 0) No order as to costs. \ ‘ ‘Jq . Sd/" 1 1 Sd/": ' ‘1 :R.N. Chandrakar Chief Justlce . V L ' ‘ Judge . ‘ ~m ggwf‘ j a