HEGH CQURT OF CHHATTE$GARH AT BiLkxSPUR QNlSiGN BENCH GORAM: H€3N’BLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’SLE SHRE SUNEL KUMAR SINHA, $. Mist; Armeal Na ??3 0? 2W5 Agne§§am . Ratan Lai Agrawai, s/o Madanla§ Awicam l AgrawaL age 22 years, rfo Bajrang a ' Cempiex, Gudiyari, Raipur 0,64 VERSUS Res6ondgni$° 1‘ Mahendra Agrawa! owner R/o Nm-applkantv Chandra Commex Shop N0. 13, Gudiyari Raipur CG. 2. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, Bfanch No.2 Shyam Market Raipur By Divisionai Office; Kutohery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. MEMQRANQUM QF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTGR VEHICLES ACT. Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsei forthe appeliant“ None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri $udhir Agrawa! and Shré P Qutta, counsel for responden‘t No.2. w. a ORDER (’3 1‘“ February. 2M 1} The follewing order of the Com was passed by Rageev Gupta. QJ. Appeiiant — Ratan Lal Agrawal is seeking enhancement of rhe compensation awarded by the Ninth Additianai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 29032005, passed in Ciaim Case No.46/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00)ODO!- claimed by ‘ the appellant/claimant by Filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.09.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of ‘R‘s.1,69i090/- as compensaiion aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned oounsei for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,69,000/— only though the appellantfclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. H4) respondent No.2 - the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the‘ other hand submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding excessive amount of Rsi ,69,GOO/— to the claimant. 5} Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant; no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the number and’hature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the ctaimant in the motor accident and the'fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. ‘ L:g ‘xeg Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta; teamed counsel for 6) The question Whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant befcre the Tribunai without examining the Dgctur who issued the certificate can be {eiied upon ae substantive evidence tor the assessment 0f the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP: SR'i‘C v. P. Thirepai Raddy, reported in (2905) 12 $66 188, wherein it was observed in. para 6 as under : ’ u . After hearing learned counsei‘for the respondent— ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court; we find that there was no iuetitication for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hidh Court committed dross error in overlookingt‘ne fact that Dre Sud‘nakar Reddv‘s medicai certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hm Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently; we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to Withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. if it has not already been withdrawn.” “6. T) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Ragesh Kumar alias Raju yiYudhvir singh and another, reported in (2%8) ? SCC 3G5, reiterated the same View with the foilowing observations in para 1 1 1 “1 1. The certificate in que$tion in this case was obtained after two yearS. it is not known as to whether theg Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. Oh what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had net been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation ‘w ‘ Act or Otherw'ise . - rs - not known. lt is - also not . known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. tt seen does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court; therefore. proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. ln absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabitity 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) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors we ‘ who had issued those certificates, in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. $RTC V. P. Thirupat Raddy (Supra) and Rajash Kumar atias Raju V. Yudhvir Singh an another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. i t d subbu 10) The appeai filed by the appe!!ant!claimant for enhancement 'of the compensaiion, therefore, faiis and is hereby dismisSed. G / 1 Na arder as to co$ts. 1) Sdl— Chief Justice k: \”\ . Sdl— Sun“ K‘m‘af Sinh Jud/ge7, g 7/