HIGHGOURTOFeHHATTISGARHATBll-ASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRlRA.tEEV^UPTA.CJ. HON'BLESHR!RANGNAtHGHJE<NDRAKAR,J. W-Si: •^ ADDellanf/: Claimant ResDondents: Misc.ADDealtClNo.99of2008 Sfflt. Rarn Bai VWo. Jhumuk Lal obragarhe <Nahar)/ aged abdut 4^ .years,.: ;^ R/o. .,: Bheijratola,^ ?;.T^h. Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Versus • ' : :1 '.': 1. Bhufchan La! Sinha, S/o. Jethy Ram Sinha, agedaboi.it 28 years, R/p. . "Villag^ Deewan Jhitiya,^' P.S. Dongergoan, Distt.-Rajnandgaon ^. ^ajid AKhatar^S/0. Hajt Mohammed Shafique, R/o. - ©udakhy Line, l:,:'.RajrTandgaon,';',::.,, , • :'".' .:::' 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through^ : Branch Manager, BrancK Offii^, Parakh BHawan,iStation Roaa,^ ,;;•.:.•Durg,^:;','-^..^;',<-::.;,. ADBealunderSectidh 173 oftheMotorVehidesAct. 1988 Present: Shriy.K. ShaFma,?counselfortheapipeltant. • , Shri RaKeshIhakuF^counserfQrresponderrtsNs.l ShriA.K.Athaley,counselforrespondentNo.3.; ORDER >th (12tnAugust,2&10) The following order of the ©oyrt was paSsed^^^ RajeevGupta,GJ.::^,:,',i.' •'. ,",,; ;.^ ;:.:,••,.',;,;.;:,: .:.,,:..1.:' Appellanfr Strit cRam Bai (s.seelong. enhancement of^ttie wrnp^satiQn awarded by e FirstAdditionalJMotqr^^^ :£ X ^ •' ?^ Ctaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26-10-2007, passedipCtaimCaseNo.34/2007. 2) As agaihst the compensation of Rs.8,01,600/- claimed by the appeliant/claimant by filing aclaim petition under Section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor aceident on 10-12-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.26,250/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum fromthe date offiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ; . 3) Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation ofRs.2©,250/-only,thoyghtheappellant/claimant sustained^multipleSerious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 28%. 4) BeforetheTribunalthectaimantexaminedherselfaloneas AW/1 in support of her daim. For the reasons best known fo the appeilanVclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal toestablish the nature ofthe injuriessaidto have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuriesresulted in anypermanentdisability. 5) The qyestion whether t.he medical certificate produced by the Glaimant before the Tribunal without eXamining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as sybstanti'i/e evidence for tMe assessment of the compensation came yp for consideration before the Apex Court in the case ot A.P. SRTCj v. w-' •\ .^' •' P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 489, wherein it wasobserved in para6 as under: "6. After hearing learned cpunsel fpr the respbndent- claimantwhomacleanattemDttosupporttheorderofthe High Court,we find that there was nojustification for the High "Court to rely on the disability Gertificate issued by Dr. Sudhater Reddy and enhance the eompensatjon by treating the jnjury as permanent disabilityto be 45 per cent. The Hiah Gourt eommitted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certifieate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination ofthatdoctQr. The Tribunaltias:determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basisofthe deBosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iustand fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbing the . same and enhancihg the comperisation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowedtowithdrawtheamountQf compensatjon awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." , 6) The Apex Court in a reeent dicturtt in the case of Rajesh fc . ' • . •: • ., Kumar aiias Raju v. Yucfhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view wlth the following observations in para 11;.: . ;,• ' - ' . : > "11. The certificate irf question in this case! was obtained after two years. It is not known as to wliether the" Civil Suigeonof the hospitai treated the appellapt. On what basis, such a eertificate was issued two years, ; ' after the accident took^ place is not known. The author of fhe said certifjcate ftad hot toeen examined. Unless the s' 4 ••Vt ^'- - r: s*. £'. -V . ~ M,;. author of the certifieate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was ealculated 6n the basis of the provisions of tfie Workmen'seompensationActorc^^ yt is alsd hot known as to wtiether he was competent to • issue such afiertjffeate; It even does not appearthatthe contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunat or the High Cburt. The Tribunal as , atso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials broughton record bytheparties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabitity of the Workmen's Gompensatioh Act which, in our opinion, ex facie ttas na application, the same, in ouropinipn, cannot be permitted fo be rajsectforthgfiret Kme' '-i..: :': j:: ' . . : i - • ' 7) tn view ofthe ab6v@quoted cfcfs ofthe Apex Cpyrt inthe cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thinipal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumaralias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh ahdanother (Supra), the medical certificate and fhe disability certificate produeed by the claimant before the Trjbunal without examining the DQctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration forenhancementofthecompensation intheease. i 8) / We, therefore, do not find any scppe for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appeliant/Glaimant forenhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails andis hereby disn-iissed. No orderasto costs.. ~§5/-~ ChiefJustice Sd/-. . R.N. Chandi-ajkar Judge v^