HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appellant Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 589 of 2010 Ravindra Kumar Singh, S/o Shyam Narayan Singh, 39 yrs, R/o Vill & PO Bhatgaon, Distt Surguja (CG) Versus 1. Shri Krishna Prasad Pat, S/o Late Moti Pal, R/o Sahijana Ward No.2, Post & Distt - Garwa, (Jharkhand) 2. Rajendra Pal, S/o Late Moti Pal, R/o Sahljana Ward No.2, Post & Distt - Garwa, (Jharkhand) 3. Mohd Salamuddin Sheikh S/o Jhulfan Sheikh R/o Purwara Tola Mairal, PO - Mairal, Distt Garwa (Jharkhand) 4. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2"<* Floor, Anand Bhawan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur - 831013 Memo of appeal under Sectron 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vtkas Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the app^lant. ORDER (28* June, 2018) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri PraTull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the appeli;"it are heard on admission. Appellant - Ravindra Kumar Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims. Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 03.04.2310, passed in Claim Case No.33/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,21,302.16 claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petitidn under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petltion till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the appellant vehementty argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.75,000/- only. 4) From para 5 of the impugned awaixl we gather that the claimant examined himself alone as AW1 in support of his daim and for the reasons best known the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal fbr establishing the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical c»rtifieate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantlve evidence for the assessment of the compensatton came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTG v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed counsel fw 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 disabllity 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 arcres error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina ttie same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside ttie impugnal 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 alreadv been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dtetum hi the ca^ of Rajedi Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, re(»rted in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with ttie follcwing observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in quesfion in this case was obtained after two yeare. It is not known as to whether the Cjvil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetlant. ..s^ •(('"« ^. ^^ ^ t"-- .1 ^fr> / ^^' 4 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 n<rt been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himsetf, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at ®3% 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 competert to issue such a certifreate. tt 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. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Wortanen's ComperBation 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." 7) In view of the above quoted dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Sirigh and anoUier (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appetlant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. !i, ::. V 'wsu:y^^^f :?•%^^s^? 9) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is Sd/- Chief Justicc Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmmi • •^._.&-.