M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ DIVIsION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. ‘HoN'BLE sHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. '7 .Misg. Appeal No. 1175 of 2004 Raghnath Ram Bhagat Slo Shri Shrimm Bhagat, age 57 years,‘ odcupation: Service, r/o Sama Toli,_ Jashpnrnagar, district Jashpur, C.G.'Z Versus Respondents: Nikunj. Clerk, Office of the Transport Jashpur,- oobupation-driver, District ashpur', C.G. 1. Vijay Kumar Nikunj slo late Sitatam ' Non-applicants Commissioner, Raipur‘ C.G.' (Owner) ' 2. William Khalkho s/o Teras Khalkho, age 22 years, rlavillage Boki’Karitala,’ P.S. J (Driver) A 3. The New insurance Co. Ltd., Branch . omce, Raigarh (C.G.) ' (insurer) Apggal under Section 173 of the-Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 Present: shri A.K. Prasad and Shri Reshan Vermel ieamee counselforthe appellant. . " ' None for respondents No. 1‘8: 2 though served? 'shri sudmr Agrawar and shri P. outta, reaméd counsel for respondent No.3. .3: ORDER ‘ 19“ August. 2010) The following order of the Court was passed b ‘ ' ( y ppellant Raghnath m Bhagat is seeing enhancement A Ra k of the compensation awarded by the ditional ater Accident Ad M Clatms Tribunat, Jashpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’ Vid awar ) a d dated 23-08-2004, passed in Claim Case No.34/2004 ‘ As gainst the compensation f Rs.8,16,570l— claimed‘ b 2) a o y the appellant olaiant by filing aclaim petitio under Section 166 ~ ! m ‘ n >- of the Motr ehicles Act for the injurie sustaine b him i he o V s d y n t - otor accident on 22-07-2000 the Tribunal awarded total su m , a m , n Q 9% r of Rs.118,750/- as compensatio along‘w'rth interest pe annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of‘ actuai payment. ' 3) ; Shri A.K. Prasad and Shri Roshan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation, of Rs.1,18,750/- only, though the appellant! claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting inpermanent disability to ' the extent of 40%. 4) - Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 New india insurance Company Limited, on the other hand; supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1",1 3,;750l- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances‘of‘the v present case. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two vw‘tnesses including himself (AW‘l Raghnath Ram Bhagat and AW2 l’x /— . h: Laxman Ram) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature‘of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor acoident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 6) The question whether the medicai oertificate‘produeedhy the claimant 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. SRTG v. a P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2006) 12 scc 18?, wherein it t ~ as observed in para 6 as under: w “6. After heanng leamed counsel for the mspondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Htgh Court, we find that there was no justmcatton for the High Court to rely on the disability certifleate issued by ‘ Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by ’\ treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per; a acent. ~- The High Court committed gross error In 7-: verlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddys medical - ertlfcate was re ected the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor The Tnbunal has determined - the physical disability at 15 gr cent on the basis of the degasrtion of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a rust and fair compensation The High 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‘allowed to withdraw the amount of T‘§w-J V / 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 “-Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 sec 306, 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 CM! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetiant ,‘ 0n what basis such a certrfcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certmcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certiticate examined himsetf it was note 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. 7 lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to a issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before theTribunal 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 havrnu been raised in reoard to the applicability of the Workmens Compensation Act which v in our opinion ex facie has no application the same in our opinion cannot be perrriitted to be raised for the first . time. ’ 8) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A P SRTC v P Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh o Kumar alias Raju v Yudhvrr Singh and another (Supra) the s medical certificate and the disabim-ycenificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctom who had issued those certmcates. 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. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. ‘\ 'sm- ~ . w a i. ,__J Sd/— l f RN. Chandrakar l Judge a Chief Justice ‘ / / i i JV if x xi l if l i l