HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVlSION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 623 of 2003 Appeilant ’ : Aruna Dey, aged about 52 yrs, w/o. B.K. Claimant Dey, Occupation—tutor, R/o. Taigorev Nagar, Raipur, Tah & Dist. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Rashid (Vehicle Driver), R/o. B.K. Prayag Travels, New Bus Stand, Ralpur, Tahsll & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Ashok Singh Chawala, (Vehicle Owner), R/o. B.K. Prayag Travels New Bus Stand, Raipur, Tahsil & ‘l’Dist. Raipur (C.G.) he United lndla lnsurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Nagpur (MS), Through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchhery Chowk, Jail Road, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur (C.G.). Respondents Non-aplicants Misc. Appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel forthe appellant. cRaER (27m August, zone) The following order of the Court was ‘passed by; Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Aruna Dey is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First‘Additional Motor Accidents, Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for shOrt ‘theTribunal‘) vide award dated: 15.03.2003, passed in Claim Case No.127/2002. p T 2) As against the compensation of Rs..5,00,DDO/— claimed by the appeilant/ ciaimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21.02.1999, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs>3,000f- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tiii the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3v,000/- enly, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. ‘ 4) ‘ Though the appellant/claimant examined herself as AW-1 in support of her claim before the Tribunal, for the reasons best known to her, no doctor was examined to establish the naturei‘of the injuries said to have been sustained by her in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before, the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who a 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. SRTCy. P. Thirupal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 183, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : /“v / We ,1 r ._.‘_ m=~_.w. r»:_m_‘m s~wa . _ z t e r.._r*_¥ \ xv“ L ,‘A l > e “6. After hearing [earned counsel far the resaondent— claimant who made an attemot t0 suoport the order of the Hugh Court, we fnd that there was no justificatron for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the. injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The HiQh Court'committed gross error in overlooking the r tact that Dr. ,Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non—examination of that doctor. i The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 ‘ per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM Mitra and awarded a lust and fair compensation. The Hidh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the i compensation. Consequently; we allow this appeal, set j aside the impugned order and restore the award of the i , Claims Tribunal. The respondent—claimant is allowed to 3 withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the T _ Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 6) e p out in a edictu in the se of Raje Th Aex Cr rcentm ca sh Ku lias au . u Sigh an anoh pore (20 7 SCC 5 rerate te me ew h the lo observans n ra 11 tio i pa 1 1 h cte qs s d I “ . Te certifia in uetion in this case wa obtaine afer two years: lt is not knon as t whether te Cvil t w o h i urgeon o th hospal tread e appellan On hat S f e it te th t. w asi, suh a cerifiate wa/issued t ears r the bs c tc s wo y afte i accen ok ace is not kown. ‘ hether h a t 6 was calcae on the as te ro o the kme ompa r or othee not nn. t nt nown as whther s cott o isse suc crtica. lt mar a Rj v Yclhvir n d ter retd in 08) 30 eitd h sa Vt Wit folwmg idt to pl n The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of 1 the certificate examined himseif it was not admissihle in evudence W te disbility a 0% ultd bsi of h pwsions f Worn s Censtion Act rWis is kow l is also o k to ‘ e he wa mpeen t u h a efite V, rv-rw—riw r *; even does not appear that the contentéons raised before us rhad either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso 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.” 7) in View» of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvi: Singh and another (Supra), the C.T.Scan report and other medical papers produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates/reports, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal tiled by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. l , . Sunil Kumar Sinh/aL Sd/ Sd/— ‘ Chief Justice - ‘ =7 Judge l ‘ l l .