HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVlSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Ctaimant Respondents Driver Owner Insurer IVIisc. Appeal No.287 of 2004 Chamar. Singh Maravi @ Bablu, S/o Late Lallu Singh, aged 32 years, R/o H.No.M-212, Ompur Colony, Thana Balco, Post Rajgamar, District Korba VERSUS 1 ttwari Ram, S/o Manohar Yadav, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Sitamadi, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.). 2 Chamar Singh, S/o Dhenuram, Aged 55 years, R/o. Village Manikpuri, H.N. H-103, Thasil & Distt. Korba (C.G.). 3 National Insurance Company Limited; Korba, Through Divisional Manager, District Korba (C.G.). Mlsc, ABReal underSectjorLj[73 of Motor Vehicles Act ! 1 Present: Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, counsel for the appellant. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (08mJuly,2009) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant ChamarT Slngh Maravi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Sakti, District Bjlaspur (for short ^^N?n?iS^^^^tJ^^tS^f?; 'T'" ^ 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.07.2003, passed in Claim Case No.39/2002. 2) As against the compensationof Rs.19,92,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by ffling aclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21 .04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant vehementty argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.45,000/- only, though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious Injuries including fracture in the motor accident. 4) Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensatlon to the claimants though the claimant could not establish that the injuries.''sustained by him in theaccident resulted in any permanent disability. . 5) Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 also suppprted the award. 6) For the reasons best known.lto the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the ..^' ..u»cssa?ite. J^-^a ^ 'v 'SL ^.^KS- appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabitity. 7) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before fhe Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the cohipensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation 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 overlooking the fact 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 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aHow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and s . / 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 atreadv been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the fotlowing observations in para 11: . "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 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 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. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. 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 also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot bepermitted to be raised for the flrst time." 7) In vie\y of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced bythe appellant/claimantbeforethe Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those .certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation irrthe case. ?. .!t^.aasu3^sSiSia^si3SSSiessWf3KSlusvWWS^SSn°~~SS£~'vsB5^^^ 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs, Sd/- Chief Justice ±a, Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma •';"''"i:("-t!^-=ii'i':i^;'s —.;.&.—^.--.^L -^ ;;?'??~'^ •'?>"^ws?^^^^^^^^^^;^^^^j^^^g^ ^^®iS^itS 3ii^S^^S^^1Si7irjs^^^: