^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSSON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant ^ Respondents Non-apDlicants IVI.A.fONo. 443 of 2010 Abdul Katam, S/o Abdul Haziz, aged about 22 years, R/o village Manpur, P.S. and Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager Oriental tnsurance company near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Bhagmania w/o late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, aged about 26 years, Chandrika, S/o Late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, aged about 7 years, Leelawati, D/o Late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, aged about 4 years, Kamiawati, D/o Late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, aged about 2 years, Nanguddu, s/o Late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, aged about 5 months, Respondents no. 3 to 6 through their natural guardian mother Bhagmania, W/o late Subhash @ Chatar Rajwade, A!l R/o Village Madanpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^t ^^. fe \^ v^ ^ViiMMi^-: Memorandum of Appea! U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appetlant. ORDER (23rd April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Abdul Kaiam is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.6,15,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest. 4) Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 68%. ~1 5) Before the .Tribunal, the ciaimant examined only two witnesses including himseif (AW-1 Abdul Kalam and AW-2 Kallu @ Gutam Sarvar) in support of his claim. 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. 6) The question whether the medica! certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai 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- cSaimant 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 Hjgh Court_committed aross error in overlpokina 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 disabititv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, ^ n..- ^. ", we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunat. 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 viewwith 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 hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certjficate was issued two years after the accident took ptace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certificate examined hjmself. it was not admjssible 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 Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal 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 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 ih the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the djsability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna!. 10) The appeal filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. __ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu