\;/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR blVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 973 of 2003. Appellant Dev Prasad S/o 38 years, S/o Claimant Bhuwanchandra Haldhar, R/o Gram Temri, post & PS Manacamp, Raipur Respondents Non-appellants VERSUS 1. Md. Siddiki S/o Hanif, Occupatlon : Sanjay Nagar, Near Idgah Kanker, Tah & Distt Kanker (CG) 2. M/s Kanker Roadways, through Mgrnaging Director, Civil Lines Raipur 3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchheri Chowk, Raipur (CG). Mlscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appellarrt. None for the respondents. Order (30th June, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanV daimant Dev Prasad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.07.2003, passed in Claim Case No.99/2002. -•"€^, 1 \r •c. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- dalmed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.08.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.22,837/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filingof the claim petition. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence led by the claimant awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity; and Rs.2,837/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.22,837/- as compensation to the claimant. 4. Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.22,837/- only though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to the appellanV claimant, no doctor was examlned before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. The questjon whether the medical certific^ite prodyced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examintng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation eame up for I "^SS^ S % ,. '%'';^s • ^' •'%. ^••--^' ^ .-;-..:^,^.^^' ^ v consideration before the Apex Court In thecase of A.P. 8RTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 SCC 188, wherein tt was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed counsei for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justtfication for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatlon by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross 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 deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust smd fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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 withdrawttie amountof 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 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in questton in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeltant. .,/ \ On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accldent 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 disabiltty 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 certjficate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunail as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on ttie 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 firet time." 8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Raj^h Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, 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. /^~w"'t ^ "9 •%^^: '"^^ ^ '^ 10. The appeal flled by the appeKant/ daimant for enhancement of the compensation, therelore, Is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismtssed. v / 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu