HKBH CQURT OF CHHATTEEGARH AT 8!LA§PUR $8: Hon‘bEe $hfi Justice R, L. Jhanwaa NLA. Na. 12$ of 200_2 Sd/- ‘ R.L.Jhanwar / Judge (5/ .04201 1, F gPPELLANT Siya Ram Versus RESPGNDE NTS Shashibhushan Ba¥ik am’ atheé‘s. Q R D E R For Pronouncement of Orde; 1f” $342011 i-éIGH GOURT OF CHHATTESGAgH AT EILASF’UR $Emle Bench : Hon’bEe Shri §a ghwai‘ La! Jhanwar; J. M A NO 12§IEGCE i maEiamt Siya Ram, $/o Kar'z%k Ram; aged about 3‘; Ciaimant yearS, Occupaiion : Agricuitur’e & Labaurer, R/o Village Bamuieg Pest 3: Paiice Stat§on : 1 Basna, Tehsii & Bisw Mahasamund (£313.) Ve¥sus a E5“ ‘ewanden‘i's $hash§bhusham Bark; S/c Vipir: Bihari 4;. GWNER Bmik, Rm Vidage & Past Dhenkikata Dést‘t. Keenjhar (Orissa) Fakiro Mohan Pam, SIG i-{aiiash Chanci Patroés Rio Musakhuri, Police $taiion- Shampatnax DEst. Keon§har (Qrissa} ERWER l\§ WSSRER 3. United india insurance Co. Ltd. Posi Earbik - 75%35. Disii. Kemghar (O?i$sa} AriagjeaE amdar Secéizm ’7: a?" éhe Maia Vehicies l Aci F Present Shri Vishnu Kashta, counse§ for the appe§iani $hri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for respondent No.3. None far mspondents No.1 & 2. CR§ER (Passed on £ 0420? Q) Appenammbimant Siya Ram is Seeking enhansement 9f ihe :empensaiion o€ Rs.22,852/— awarded by the ‘ES‘ Addiiiena% Mote? Ascidenés Mbenal, Qa‘nasamund (f0! Sheri: ‘the Tribune?) vide award 'iatee 03092001 passed m daim ease No. ’ E52800. 2. As against the camperxsa‘iian of Rs.i,52i8<}0f- ciaimeei by i‘ne eppeiien‘i by fiiing ciaim pe'ition under Section 166 of “the i‘xfzetor Vehicles A i'for me injui'ies sustemed by him in the mote-r aeci em or: 8.1 .2900, the Tyibunai awarded tote} sum of Rs.22,852i~ as cempensmtiezi eicng with inieiest at 9% per annum iii'om the date 0f fiiia'ig of cieim petition tiii ihe date of eciuei eeyment. 3. Shi'i Vishmu Kcsh‘i'a, ieamed ceunsei for the appeiiarat argued that five "fi'ibunai has ewed in n01 coneicieiing the percenfage of peimanent disabmi'y sustainad by ihe appeilané in ihe moisr accidentwdespite pmducticn sf disabmty certificate shmvéng disability to the exient 9f 55% §5$ued by ihe Medka? Board, Raipur. The warned Wibunai ought i9 have seen “he he afica e issued by the Medicai Board Raxpur ard zh¢raa aey shéwd have prcperly assessed the comperfsaiion. On these premises, he urged tha€ compensaiion amount ma be emaaced. \ 4‘ Q?! ‘tha eth r hard 35m Dashvat?‘ Gupta leametf rounse far tw :rsuref t‘ortendad ha; wo c‘crtur has beeq exammed therefm'e, iha iearred TI mural has rgh‘iy aWardeo. rotrpersagron aw. no mien‘erenae fr: ‘m ‘ &e impugned i$ required. 5, Befcre the ‘Tribunah he claimant e}: mined himseif as A.¥\J.3. Accofdirzg ie him, due t0 aecident, he sustained injuries inciuding ffaemre en his r§gm %eg‘ He has predeced dcicum-nts shew mg ha‘ he was cc” exemined by he edice siamn Sayaipali at Cemmunity Heaiih Qenter, Saraipai§. m supper: of his evidence, he has also pi‘edu a cert xcaie showimg shat he suife d 5’:% perma ent disabii‘ y. A pemsa! of such Peezficate wouici cieany reveal tha? *he same was issues by ’me Me cai Board, Raipur‘ However, for ihe feasoes best known to the claimant ne denier was examined before the Tnbunal i0 establish the natute ef the injuries said to have been sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident and the lav: ti‘at those in Lines resuited in any permanent disabiiity. A e. The questien whether the disabiiity certificate produced by the c we at befcre the Tribune Without examlrmg the “octct :0 preve the certificate issued by the Medica: 30am; Ratpur can ee reiied upen as substantive evidence for the assessment cf the campensation came up for consideratien before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.$t¥?'€ t Pr Entrapal Raddy, teperted in {20%) 12 $f3t; ’389 wherein it was observed in tiara 6 as under: 6 After nearing learned ccunsei for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we tind that there was no justification for the High Court to teiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Ccurt committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribune! for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunat has determined the physicai disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis y of the deposition 0f Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just an iair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiio this appeai, sei aside the impugned order and restore the award of ihe Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is aiiowed to Witherew the amoun‘i of compenseiion awarded by the Tribunal, ii it has not already withdrawn” E’. ‘ The Apex Cour? in a rent dictum in the case oi Rajesh Kinney alias Raga 1i. Yudhvir Sing}: and enoaher, reported tn (3%8) T $Cs: 3%} tetterated the same View with the following observatiene in para 1‘2: u . ll 11. The certificate in question in thie case was ebtained t after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On whet baeie; such a certifigate was issued two years atter the accident teak eiace is not knewn. The author of the said certificate had net been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensatien Act or etherwise is not known. it is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that .L tne i contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aéso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiaie breaght on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having ’Compensation been raised in Act reoard which, to the iin appiioabiiitv our opidioh. of ek‘facie the Workmen’e has no apniioation, the same, in our opinion cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 8. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Raipur and produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the doctor concerned: in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of ARSRTG v. P. Thirupal Reddy and Rajesh Kumar atias Rain v. Yudhvir $ingh and another (supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ot the compensation in the ease. g. l. therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 1t}. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellantlcaimant for enhanéement of the compensation tails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. .\ \ Sdl- , (\\\\\ .\\ ‘, R.L.Jhanwar ‘ Judge i