F7 GOURT OF CHHAT ^r^^ s,'s. DIV!SIOIIt M^^.i'^a ^ •S'^UI- s'-i^s'^ S»a=, ^s Ig iisc. .Anpea! No. 814 of Mohanla!, s/o Parasram Dewanoan, AnpeHani '•^.'f^tit i iCU about f3S JD <s^-su ^uuui oo yc;<ais, Snatdinaasr Main Road, ?.fl^,.:,T^ .^;^,A^;^^. o^i^,,^ /-?^ ir^ \ 'iViiJVtS, UiOi.fj^i. i"\C3JpUs ^^'.1^>.^5 R/o !»:;i--!liS'g3i^ ^B Sesponcients 1. vinod Vishwakarma, S/o Devji Vishwakarma, ay&d sbout 40 y'83rs, R/'o Palki, Thana - Narayanpur, r>\,^».._^.f. Q.-^^^^y. fr^ r^_ \ UI^Ul^i. Dd^lffil ^^.^.^ Present Address - DeDartment of HortiCulture, Government of ;"nattisgarn, Civil Lines, Kaipur, <^^ f^ (Driver of ths Trax bearing No.CPZ S149) 2. Government of Chhattlsgam throuoh inc uirecior, uepaniTisni 01" Horticuiture, Civi! Llnes, Raipur, C.G. (Owner of the Trax bearing No.CPZ 6149) 3. The New 'ndia Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Ba'rang Market, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurcr of Vshicls No. C.Q. 04/0- 402) /. under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988 'resent • . Shri Satvendra Sanu and Shri Suresn Tandon, learnsd counse! for the appellant. None forTespondents No. 1 & 3 though served. Shri J.A. Lohani, !earned Pans! Lawyerfor resoondent No.2. \\ ,, \' '-f^^' m ORDER (04th0ctober,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.' Appeilant - Mohahlal -is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Thjrd Additional Motor Accident GtaimsTribunal, Raipur(forshprttheTribunal!) vide award dated 31-03-2004, passed in Claim Case No.36/2002. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.14,46,000/- claimed by the appeliant/claimant byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13-01-2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,500/- as cQmpensation along with interest @ 6% per annum frpm th&date offiling ofthe Glaim petitiorTtill the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counselfortheappellantvehementlyarguedthattheTribunalhas erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.15,5p0/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor aecident resulting in permanent djsability/: : : '• ':•' : ! •:' ' • ' : : • ' • ;..:: ,; : '/ '- 4) Before the Tribunal^the clajmant examinetftwo witnesses including 'himself (AW1 MQhanlal ^nd AWZ Laxmi Dewangan) in support of his claim; For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant^ no doctor wasexamined before; the Tribunal to establish the nature oftHe injuries said to have been Prasad •"•'^^^^£& Si ~CS^K' ^ li'l-' L-_ sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by J» the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate ean be relied ypon as substahtive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for Gons?deration before the Apex Court in the case ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy,reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed inpara6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order ofthe 1-ligh Court, wefind that therewas nojustificatjon forthe 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- examinationofthatdoctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per eent on the basis of Ihe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair comRensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and e.nhancina the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow thjs appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-elaimant is allowed towjthdrawthe amounf of compensation iawarded by the Tcibunal, if |it has not already beenwithdrawn." : ^ 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another; reported in "*l<1 3o (2008) 7 SCC30S,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 hospita| treated the appellant. On what basis; sueh a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not beenoamined. Unless 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 provisjons of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he;was eompetent to issue sueha certificate. It even does not appearthat the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials broughton recprd bythe parties. ln%bsence of any contention having been raised in regarcl to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation ACf whicti, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permltted to beraised for the first time." , - 7) The medical certificates produced by the claimant befbre the Tribynal, in view of the above quoted of/cte of the Apex Court • f . ' • •• . .'...... .':'. . •' • .: •.•...'••:•'•: •:..••••...'.... in the cases of A.R. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Sirigh and anolher (Supra),|cannd: be taken into Gonsicteration fdr enhariGement of I. • .' ••••.•.•.••..•••••" • . ' •. • " . thecompensationintheease. *. );OTSS6l3H(IBBB)af; ii. ^s^ ^ '~<B ,*' ';; oi,-ffl»»°'1 ^l 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Ju^ge