HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeaj No 1099 of 2005 Appellants (Claimants) Respondents •^ 1. Beby Roji S/o S.R. Gawade aged about 16 years (lega! Guardian) aged (Minor-through-jegai guardian- Ad-iitem father S.R. Gawade) 2. S.R. Gawade s/o late B.S. Gawade aged about 45 years Applicant No.1 C/o Parent Father S.R. Gawade both are R/o Village Muila Tahsii Bhanupratappur Dist. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Deleted. 2. Dwarika Prasad Yadavs/o Mansharam Yadav R/o Oid Market Dalli Rajhara Tah. Baiod dist. Durg (C.G.) (Motor Driver) 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gill Compiex Station Road Near Gurudwara Durg Dist. Durg C.G. Mandal Office, P.B. No. 123, Korba- 495678 (C.G.) 4. Taj Md. S/o Md. Ibrahim aged about 45 years R/o. behind Santoshi Mandir Bhanupratappur Tah. Bhanupur Dist. Kanker (C.G.) (Motor Driver) 5. Dashrath Rao Shinde S/o B.R. Shinde R/o Thakur Road Jagdalpur Hal Ganjpara dist. Durg (Motor Driver) Mlsc._ApDeal under Sectjon 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act Present: Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, counsel for the appellants. Shri Q. Aziz, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (27th January, 2011) The appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.01.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.70/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- daimed by appellant/claimant Beby Roji through her father appellant No.2 S.R.Gawade, by filing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the ciaimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dateof fiiing of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. 3) Ms. Sonia Kuideep, learned counsel for the appeltants vehemently argued'that the Tribunal has erred jn awarding low compensation of Rs.1,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident. 4) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish ^s^^t that the injuries sustained by claimant Beby Roji in the motor accident resuited in any permanent disability, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined themselves only aswitnesses i.e. AW1 Beby Roji and AW2 S.R. Gawade in support of their claim. For the reasons best known to the daimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by claimant Beby Roji 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 for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court inthe cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189 and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305. The Apex Court in the aforesaid cases observed that unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. 7) The medical ce'rtificates produced by the ciaimants 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 ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal^ddy (Supra) and Rajesh •-^^'-^''?s. w^^\ —g 1 ^-'y/- .,^y <.' Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) I, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge nimmi