Resnondenm Non~applicants l x { 1 i { if HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BELASPUR DEVESEON BENCH CDRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. Misc. iXpyeai No.394 of 2W2 £mnenani Mohar Lal, Slo Thakur Prasad, aged Qiaimant about 20 years, accupa'tion agriculture, Rio ViHage‘ Bansipur, Police Station Pratappur, Distt Surguja (CG) UERSI§S Nan Sai, S/o Bigan RajWar, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Bejha, occupatéan « Service in SECL Kalyani Bhatgacn, Tahsil Surajpur, Disti Smguja (Owner & driver both) The Ofientai insurance Co‘ Ltd, ihrough Branch Manager branch — Office near Ram Mandgr Ambgkawr Dzstt Surguja (CG) (insurer) Appea! tinder Section 173 0f Winter Vehicles Act, i938 Present: Shn Manu Ghosh counsel forthe appellant None for respondent No 1 nough served Shn Suwakant Mishra counsel for respondent No.2. oRoER (em March, 2m; The following order of the Court was passed by Rejeev $upta, OJ“ Appellant e Mohar Lal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor ACCidenr Claims unei Suraiour Distt Surguia (for short ‘the Tribunal) Vide gaward dated 0.03.2002, passed in Claim Case No.91/2000. 1 é b t0 As againSt the compensatien of Rs.25,00,000/n chimed by the appeiiant/ciaimant by filing a ciaim petition under Sec;ion 166 of ’ the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.05.1999, the Tribunai awafded a toiai sum of Rs.25,0(}0/- as compensation. is). Shri Atanu Ghosh, ieameo‘ counsei for theiappeiiant vehemently argued that the TribUnai has erred in awarding low we compensation of Rs.25,000/— onty though the appeiiant/ciatmant i sustained muitipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Suryakant Miehra, learned’counsei for respondent No.2 Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported ‘ the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated i the insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the i ciaimant. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses including himself (AW/1 Mohar Lal and AW/2 Thakur i Prasad) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to :t‘ne appellant! claimant, no doctor was examined before the kTribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been l sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the jclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who 3 l issued the ceitificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence 2)‘ a ‘ l l l i l is) l l for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration l ‘ . l before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. ThErupaE i Raddy, reported in {2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was qbserved in para 6 as under : “6 After hearing learned counsei fer the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there‘was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy, and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabtiity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the taot'that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deoosition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we ailow 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 aiready been withdrawn.” 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Ragesh 1 Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in {2W8} 7 SCC 395, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para 11 : “i 1. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. lt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place 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 r 1' evidence. Whether the disabmty at 60% was caiculated en the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or othefwise is not known. it is aiso not knoiwn as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before u/s had either been raised before the Tribunal or‘the High Court. The Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of any Contention having been raised in " ‘ regard to the appiioabiitty of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facte has no appiication, 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 in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir $ingh and another (Supra), the medicai certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal tiled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. “Ana 7 5d]- CHIEF JUSTICE.