HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH c CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA M. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Appellant CSaimant M.A.No.1271of2005 Rameshwer, S/o Rikhi Ram Sahu, Age about 30 years, R/o Gram - Ratpayali, Tehsil & Thana Dongergarh, Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) V-.'^' ^. Respondents Non-cSaimants VERSUS Premdayal Pandey, S/o Shiv Shanker Pandey, Age about 52 years, R/o Shivajj Nager, Ward No.16Durg(CG)(Driver) Sanjay Kumar, S/o Hanuman Yadav, Age about 30 years, Dhamdha Naka, Mohan Nagar Durg (CG) (Owner) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, .Through its manager, Kamathi line, Rajnandgaon (CG) (Insurance Company) . Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri AwadR'Tripathi, Smt Indira Tripathi and Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER ?th (17m December, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant - Rameshwer is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents -isy L. €. Ciaims Tribunal Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.05.05, passed in Claim Case No.19/2004. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.71,239/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.71,239/- oniy though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4. The claimant before the Tribunal examined himself as AW-1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to establish the 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. 5. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal w/ithout examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal ^;:T;K^fc^ g^g^'' 1: t Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein itwas observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate jssued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation 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 certiflcate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and 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 CIaims Tribunal. The respondent-ctaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6. 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 foltowjng observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. ft is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitaltreated 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. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on 'IBII '.^99 !%^~r ./^•.\ ri '^sfm 1 •^ ^y '^ c ^ '—'^^- •*^.^ the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is atso 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 apptication, 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 A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Smgh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued the said certiflcates, 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 awardeci by the Tribuna!. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No orderas to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge subbu