^? >te" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORANI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant ResDondents Misc. Appeal No.37of 2004 Laxminarayan, aged about 27 (26) years.son ofShri Sukhiram, resident of village Handipara, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. Tejpal, aged about Dhanikram, resident of C/o Super Electronics Katora Talab Raipur Distt Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver of the Vehicle NO.CG-04ZCX0514) 2. Prithwipal Singh, son of ShriJaswant singh, resident of Super Electronics Katora Talab Raipur (Owner of the Vehicle No.CG-04 ZCX 0514) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through : the Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2 Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Distt Raipur (Chhattjsgarh) (Insurer of the vehicle) Memo ofappeal under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri R Pradhan, counsel for the appellant. S.mt Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. .ORDER ith (14In June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Laxminarayan is seeking enhancement of the eompensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claim.s Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vid& award dated 16.01.2003, passed in Claim CaseNo.59/2002. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries 'sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,41,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of theclaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri R Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,41.500/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor aceident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Smt Chitra Shrivastava,learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle truck, on the other hand suppori:ed the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,41,500/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be'tefrmed as inadequate so as to warrantenhancement in this appeal. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW/1 Laxminarayan and AW/2 Sharad Agrawal) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ ^> i ii claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature ofthe injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any pernnanent disability. 6) The question whether the medicalcertificate 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 in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was 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 issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Courtcommitted aross error in overlooking the fact that Dr.^udhakar^eddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tnbynal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has^determjned the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the - basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and^ fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the sarffe andenhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, -gpt aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed towithdraw the amount of 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 question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of thesaid certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise 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 thecontentions 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 application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medicalcertificate and the disability certificate produced by the appel.tent/claimant before the Tribunal withoutexamining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted d/'cte of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddy (Supra)and Rajesh KumaraliasRaju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for serihancement Qf the compensation in the case. .€.l?^: } ^ rix 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the eompensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- i Chief Jusdce j . J Sd/- N.K. Agawal Judge subbu