@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT6SGARH AT BILASPUR DiVJSION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi SUNSL KU^AR SSNHA, J. ^ ADDeiSant C'lalmant Respondents1 m Misc. ADpeas (Cl No.SOS of Shivphal, S/o Jhulsai Chauhan, Aged about 19 years, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil: Champa, Distt 'Janjgir - Champa (CG) 1 Laharman Sahu, S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu, Aged about 23 years (Driver of the offending vehicle) 2 Nanki Ram Sahu, S/o Moharsai Sahu, Aged about 60 years (Owner of the offending vehl^le) Both are R/o Village Kadari, Polics Statlon : Barad'vvar, Tahsll : Champa Distt Janjgir - Champa(CG) 3 Branch Manager, Nationai insurance Company Umited, 13 Mlnu Compjex, Main Road, Korba, Kosabadl Korba, Poiice Statlon, Tahsii & Dlstrict Korba Miscellaneous ADpeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorMehldesAct k Present : Shri Pushpendra Patel and Shri Jeet Patel, counsei for the appeilant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ird (3ro September, ^. The foilowing order of the Court was by Gupta, ^J. ^—^ SSt ?1 |8dnj|igi 'd ®A Oiyg'd'V 10 ®seo941 ui ^nOQ xadv 94^ ajopq uoj^ejapisuoo joj dn aiueo uojigsuediuoo sy; 10 yje^ussesss 944 jo^ .'\ 90U9piA9 aMiUS^sqns SB uodn p9i|9j aq ueo aieoyi&eo eqi penssi OI|M jopoa aqi 6u|U!LUBX9 inoyvm jBunqyi sq^ ejoieq ^ueuuieio 34i Aq psonpojd eieoiji^seo leojpsas 34^ jeyiaqM uoi^senb eyi (9 •A^iiqesip lueueujjad AUG ui paiinsaj seynfui ssoy^ i@q; pBj aqi pue ^uepioos JOIOLU sy^ u! ^ueuj!e|04US}j3da'5 sy^ Aq psuie^ns uesq 9Aey o^ pies ssyniui aui p sjnieu 8ui ysijqetss o^ jeunqui ey^ sjopq peuiujexs SBM jopop ou iiUBUi|B|o^u@j|9ddB 9L{^oi uMOU>i issq SUOSB9J sqi JOJ (^ "A^jjqesip lusueLujad ui eui+insej iu9pioo@ jopLU 94^ ui ssjnpsjj Suipniou! seunfu! snoyes 9jdj^niu peuseisns iueLUieiOAU8||sddB s^ qSnoq^ !A|UO -/009i8"sy P uoi^esusduoo A^O| DUipjBAi\e UE psjje sey ieunqsji eqi isi^ penSje AjiusLueyeA ^ueiiedde 941 joj lesunoo psujee-j (g •^ueuiAsd |8np5 ^o sisp 941 ||i^ uoiiipd tiiieio 34^ p 6u!|y 10 e^ep By} ujoj^ ujnuue jsd %Q @ ^sjeiuj q^iM 6uojg uoiiesuediuoo ss -/oog'Q'sy p uuns VSIQI e papjeAW jeunqui sy^ 'WOS'i-OZS uo ^uepiooe jopuj 9W us tuiq Aq pauiB^sns ssunfuj equo^ pv ssipiLjeA Jopj^ sy^ p 991, uoipss jspun uoiiusd uuiel0 s SuEiU AqiueiuiBp / ^jjsdde 9^ Aq peLUEBjo '-/ooo'CZ'SS'Sci j0 uoiiBSuediuoo sy^ ^suseSe sy (3 '9003/0 I.'ON 9S®0'^ESJO ui psssed ZQOZZO'iO ps^ep PJBMB 9p|A- (.jeunqyi 941, 'voys joj) ipies 'ieunqyi SLuieio ^uepsoov Jo^oyy |8uo|^ppv 941 Aq pepjeAAs uoiiBsusdujoo eqi p ^ueuaoueyus 6ui>(99S si jBqdAiqs tUB||9ddv 3 & Reddy reported In (2005) 12 SCC 189, whereln it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - daimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation for the Hlgh Court to reiy on the disabltity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the in|ury as permanent disabillty to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error In overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair combensation. The Hjah Court erred in disturblna the same and enhancina the compensation; Consequentiy, we allow this appeal, set asids the impugned order and restore the award' of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent-cSaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn."' 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, rejterated the same view with the following observations In para 11 : \^- ' \' "11. The certificate Sn question in this case was ^btalned after two years. it is not known as to ^. wbether the Civll Surgeon of the hospitai treated c l^ Itftli the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the acddent took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unlessthe author ofthe certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whetherthe dlsability at 60% was caiculated on the basls of the provislons of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwlse is not known. !t is aiso pot 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 Gourt. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the psrties. In absence of any cohterttion having been raised Jn regard to the applicablilty of the • Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has np appiicatson, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for theflrst time." 7) in view of the above quoted dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Bajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhv'sr Singh and another (supra), the medica! certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appeliant/clalmant before the Tribunal Vi/ithout examining the Doctors who had issued those certiflcates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 8) W^, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the \ compensatson awarded by the Tribunal. padma 9) The appeaj filed by the appellant / ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 'l '\