.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc Appeal (CV No. 658 of 2011 Ku. Sonj Rawat, D/o Shiv Kumar Rawat, aged about 20 years; R/o Nagar, PS Bishrampur, District Surguja (CG) » VERSUS 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, The Orien.tal Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District - Surguja ... Insurer of the vehicle 2 Pawan Kumar Singh, S/o Dharmnath Singh, aged about 38 years; R/o Ward No.8, Jailpara, Surajpur, District - Surguja(CG) .... Owner ofthevehicle 3 Shravan Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Jalandhar, aged about 35 years; R/o Nagar, PS Surajur, District - Surguja Driver of the vehicle Miscellaneous ApDeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Ashish Surana, counsel forthe appellant, ORDER (27thJune,2011) Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant/ Claimant Ku. Soni Rawat is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11 .03.2011, passed in Ctajm Case No.80/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.18,10,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 26.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.38,000/- as compensation along with jnterest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Ashish Surana, Jearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.38,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant could not pursue herstudies on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and 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. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence forthe assessment of the compensation came up for consideration ^\ before the Apex Court in the case ofA.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189,wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that therewasnojustificationfortheHigh Courtto rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating theinjury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected 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 deposjtion of Dr KM Mitra and awardeda iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina 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 allowed 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 Kumaralias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following 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 ^^ ,/ . ^ 4 theappellant. On what basis, sucha 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 notadmissible in evidence. Whetherthedisability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwiseis 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 ejther been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the material%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 be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consideratiQn for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any seope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ...•?::^'^ •'/^"'^ x j ^ M ^£5;' subbu ^. 10) The appeal, fited by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensatipn, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -^ /