HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 801of 200S APPELLANT APPLICANT Smt. Suko Poyami, W/o Mundru, aged about 40 years, Caste Muriya R/o Viilage Bodekarka, P.S. Barsur, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Sunil Gupta, S/o Chhoteial Gupta, aged about 28 years, R/o Dewangan Para, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (owner & driver of vehicle Mahindra Commander Jeep No. ;.G. 18ZD-0178) c The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Insurance Company of vehicle Mahindra Commander Jeep No. C.G. 18/ZD-0178) Umesh K^rma, S/o Sukoo Karma, aged about 23 years, R/o Harampara, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver of the vehicte Mahindra Max UP-93 J-9184) Virendra Bhan Shrivastava, S/o Unknown, R/o Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (owner of the vehicle Mahindra MaxUP-93J-9184) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Jagdalpur, district Bastar (C.G.) (Insurance Company of the vehicle Mahindra Max UP-93 J-9184) J^-< '«»»; '^--^-. .y i. II ^^^ 1 '"*«as'aSSS!y ?^ Miscellaneous Aopeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehfcte Act Present: Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (30th June, 2009) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Smt. Anju Ahuja, teamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Appellant Smt. Suko Poyami, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 102/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; Tor the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a tdal sum of Rs.3,400/- as compensation along with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,400/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple seriousinjuries including fractures in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctorwas examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of E; \ y '^?15cs V: '•^- *.. the injuries said to have been sustained by the appetlant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact thatthose injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be retied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed In para 6 as under: f-t "6. After hearina learned counsel 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 Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medtoat certlficate was rejectedby the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the sameand enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugnedorder and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is atlowed 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 Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : ^^^1 "9S99,. j '' liitli: (" "11. 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 appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was i^ued 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 admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. tt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as atso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. tn absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applteability 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." 8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certlficates, 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 filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJiistiee 19 ? Sd/- SunitKumar Sinha judge (U.V*»A*