HIGH COURT CW= CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Misc. Appeal No. 1214 of 2003 Dinesh Kumar Soni, Slo Shri Mahavir Prasad Soni, aged 31 years, ResMence of Ghandi Chowk, Korba, P.S. Kotwali, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.). Respondents VERSUS Prakash Rajak, S/o Narayan Das Rajak, aged about 31 years, Residence of Radhapara, Champa, P.S.'1 Champa, Tah. Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa Sams Jiya Ansari, S/o MJ. Hasan Ansari.aged about 38 years, Resictence of Barpali Chowk, P.S. Champa Tah. Champa, Distt. JanjgirChampa (C.G.). Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Korba, Branch Office Korba,13 Monu Complex, Main Road, Kosabai, Korba, Tah. & Dist.Korba (C.G.). Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri M.K. Baeg, counsel forthe appellant. None for=Fespondente No. 1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel Tor respondent No.3. ORDER ith (04m September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajfeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Dinesh KumarSoni is seeking enhanceflient ofthe compensation awarded by the Additiohal Motor Accidents Claims iMWiSS& Tribunal, Kobra (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.09.2003, passed in Claim Case No.02/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.93,10,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accidenton 06.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the clalm petitlop till the date <rf aetual payment. 3) Shri M.K. Baeg, leamed counsel for th,e appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred m awarding low compensationof Rs.75,OX)/- onty, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious in|uries Inctudlng fraclures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant exennined two witnesses including himself (AW-1 Dinesh Kumar Soni and AW-2 Rakesh Kumar Soni) in support of his claim. For the reasons b^t knowi to theappellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in :the motor accident and the fact thatthose injuriesresulted in any permanentdisability. 5) The question whether the medical certlficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining fhe Dwtor who Issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up Tpr consMeration befbre the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTO v. P. ThirujMil -nji •&;,.:!^'.'';;i-. sM,SSWs-./'»i ^^r:^^i'^^'•^^'•i^^^?:^•'•'~^t^^^'^~~ uo psie|no|Bo SBM %o9 VB Atiiiqesip 9i<} je4(3i|/\A -aouapiAe ui siqis^iiupBi iou SBM )i •jiasiuiq pauituexB 8}eou!tJao 941 p joi|)ne si|t!ssa|un •pauiujexs uaaq iou pei| steoyiiJBO ppes aq»p jqi|}nB8i|i •UMOU>| }ou siaoeid >|00} tuapiooe 94} jaye aiesA OAiq penssi SEM 9}Boy|}J80 e qons 'siseq IB4M UQ 'tueilsddB eyi psiesj) iBftdsoij si|i jo uosBjns HAJO 8(11 JSlllSttM 0} SB UMOU)) tou si i| 'sjesA ON^ jBye pauieiqo savi aseo siin ui uoi|sanb ui eieajipso 341 • |, !,„ : i.j.'ejed ui suoiiBAjasqo Suiwoypi 8q» 4»iM MSIA BLUBS 94} petBjeiiaj 'SOS OOS 2. (800Z) ui peyodej 'jaifloue pue yBuis JiAypnA "A nfey sei|e jeiun>| ysafey }Q aseo 941 ui iun}oip luaoaj e ui ynoo xady eiii (9 ,,-UMBJpqijM ussq ApB9J|e }ou SBI)}! K 'ieunqui aqt Aq pspjBMB uoitesusdLuoo ^o lunouie 341 Mejpq)iM oi p8MO||e sj iueui|B|o-)uapuodsaj eqi •leunqyi SUIIBIO 94} P pJBMB 841 8JO}S9J pUB jspjo p9u6ndLui 841 apisB }as '|B8ddBS!i(}MO||B aM 'Aiiuanbasuoo 'uoResuadiuoo 8i@GU|OUBt<U9 PUB auiES aiftDuiqjnisip ujpslis IjnoQ KfjH 841 "uoitBsueaujoo jie} pue tsni e papjBme pue Riiiyy •|ftr»'JQ p uoitisodap ayi^o siseq eift uo iuao jsd gi, le Atiiiqesip |eo!sAi)d sqi pauiuuaiep sey |eunqui eqj. •joioop teiiijo uojieuiiuexa-uou jo^ |eunqui aijiAq pstosjsj SBM 9}e!Mj!i®o'tBO!paiu s.Appsy jB)|eqpns "JQ ley} IOBI 3i|t DUMOO|J8AO ui joiia SSOJD peniuiiuoo }jnoo yDjH syi •luao jad sfr aq °l^tiliqesiP lusueuued SB Ajnfui eqi Buneeji Aq uoitBswduJOO syi aouequs pue Appsy jeiieypns •JQ Aq |»nsstsieoyiyeo Aii.itqesip 8i)i uo AISJ 01 ynoo 4611-1 ayi jo^ uo!}eoy|}snf ou seAk SJBII} tei|i puy SM 'ijnoo ii&i-i ayuo japjo 94} yoddns 01 i.duue}^ ue epELu oyM iueiuiB|o -pepuod^j stjt joj lesunoo psujesi Buuesii jsyv "9» : japun SB g ejed uj pSAjasqo SBM i! upj8t|m '681. OOS Zl. (SOOZ) ui payodsj 'Appay (^ subbu the basis of the provisions ofthe Workmen's Compensatlon Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certlficate. It even does not appear that the contentions ralsed before us had either been raised before the Tribunal qr the Hlgh Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on rword by the partles. In absence of any contention havlng been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Cflmpen®ition Act which, in our opinion; ex facie has no appBcation, the same, in our oplnion, cannot be permitted to be raised tor the flrst time" 7) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apesc Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and anothw (Supra), the medical certiricate and the disability certiflcate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Trlbunal without examining ttie Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement of the compensatlon in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/ clalmant tor enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. 10) No order as to costs... Sd/- OuefJustice Sd/'- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge^ , irtn'i