HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 878 of 200S Aopeliant Claimant Chandraman Singh, S/o Suran Singh, Caste-Gond, Aged about 20 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Vitlage Baskar, PS Jhilmili @ Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Versus Respondents Non-applicants 1. Ray Singh, S/o Dharamjit Singh, Caste - Gond, Aged about 27 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Salka, PS & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) (Driver) 2. Shyamlal, S/o Sukalu, Caste Jaiswal, R/o Village Khond (Sorga), PS Patna, Post Pandavpara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) (Owner) 3. Lagan Singh, S/o Ramprasad, Aged about 45 years, Occupation — Agriculturist, R/o Village Tengni, PS & Post Patna Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) 4. Ham Prasad, S/o Sukhdev, R/o Vlllage Tengni, PS & Post Patna, /TAhsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) (Owner) Mjscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 .'a%. '"•^ :^9. "'fci•'^1^ Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Roshan Verma, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 ORDER (04th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeliant/ claimant Chandraman Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 2" Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.04.2005, passed in Ctaim Case No. 19/2004. 2) As againstthe compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.10.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.42,240/- as compensation along wlth interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel forthe appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.42,240/- only though the appellanU ciaimant sustained multipte serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. '•^-•'^y .--•y ;;i'l!''" 4) Shri Roshan Verma, iearned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.42,240/- as compensation to the claimant. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as three witnesses including himself (AW-1 Chandraman Singh, AW-2 Suran Singh and AW-3 Samaylal) in support of his olaim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / 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 ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied 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: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification forthe High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation bytreating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in \ overtookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's wiedical fBrtififate was reiected bv the Tribunal i' e' ' # 4 1 11 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 KM Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-daimant 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 1 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 : "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. Untess 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 provislons 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 be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certlficates produced by the appellant/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 consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismlssed. 11) No order as to costs. sd/- Chlef Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge subbu