@ 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. I HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. O MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Present: Ms. Somshukia Sarkan learned couneei for the appeiiant. .. NLA. No. 484 2005 jAPPELLAN’i‘ : Sevak Ram Chandrakar, 5CLAIMANT aged about 19 years, Sio Tulsi Ram Chandrakar, Prefession - Grossafy Shop , Rio Abhanpur Basti, Tahsii & Disit. “L. Raipur (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Gin/var Das Vaishnava, S/o Ramnarayan Vaishnava, R/o vmage Bemcha, P.S. Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.). (Motorcycle Rider). 2. Ramayan Das Vaishnava, S/o Lachchhi Das Vaishnav, viliage — Bemcha! P.'S. i Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund (CG) (Motorcycie 9wner) 3. The New India Insurance {insurer of the Vehicle} Comp. Ltd. Divisional Manager, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road‘ Raipur (C.G). (Motorcycie insurer). ORDER {23rd Aprn, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. \ Ms. Somshukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. u e 2. Appellant Sevak Ram Chandrakar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.1 1 .2004. passed in claim case No. 127/2004. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.6,50,000l— claimed by the appellanti 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 17.03.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,000/‘ as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. .1. 4. Ms. Somshukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.7,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 5. Though medical certificate and disability certificate were produced by the claimant before the Tribunal, no Doctor was *examined before the Tribunal to prove the contents ef those certificates. 16. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certtficate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for V c consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing learned counsei 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 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 High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non; examination ofthat doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hioh Court erred in disturbino the same and enhancind the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow 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 a \Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in '\ ©2098) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the foliowing Qbservations in para 11 : . ‘ “1 1. 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 appeiiant. 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. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity 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. lt 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. ln 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.” .z 8. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, as the Doctor issuing the medical certificate and disability certificate was not examined before the Tribunal, those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta 6fthe 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), are neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive for enhancement of the compensation. w i I ¢ ‘ V @ 9 A For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for nhancément of the compensation awarded by the Tribun§L 0. The appeai fiied by the appellant/ claimant for j enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Iiabie to be J é f 1‘1 dismissed and is hereby dismissed summaril L//'_"‘/ - o, S . ha Sdl- “K ’L V sun“ Kuma; 3‘“ v Chief Justice-L Judg i/ /’