@ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BELASPUR BNIS3ON ENCH C$R§M HON’BIE SHRI RAJEEv GUPTA, CJ. HG§¥BLE$ R§RAN {WWH €%%§‘N$RE\ AR . Misc‘ £ppeai N0. 4m 0f 26M. Sheikh Murtaza, son of Shri Nabi Baksh, Caste —Muslim, aged about 6D years, (asident of Shanti Nagar (Vishrampur), Tehsii Sura}pur, District Sarguja. Versus ixpgaiant C§a§maml Remundems 1. Branch Manager, The Orientai Nenuaggwicanig insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur granch, Tehsi! Ambikapur, District Sarguja. 2. Ra}esh Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Vimndra Kumar $inha, aged about 35 years, resident of Vishrampur, Tehsi] surajpur, District Sarguja. Permanent Resident of Korba, District Korba. memerandum 0f angeai under Secticn W3 of the Motm' VehicEes Act. ‘wSS Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawai, ieamed counsei for the appenam. Shri A.K. Athaiey, learned counsel for responcient No.1. None for respondent No.2 though served. oRoER {17m June, 21m) The foflowihg order of the Court was pessed by Rageev Gugta, CJ. 01 @ Appellant — Sheikh Murtaza is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Fkst Additional Motor Accident Clalw’le Trlbunal, Suralpur, (far short ‘the Tlibunal’) Vlde award dated- 31 122994, passed in Claim Case No.1 19/2094. 2‘ As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/— claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 0i the Meter Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01. .1 1 .2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum or' Rsr§Q,OOO/— as compensation along with intereet @ 7% per annum from the date of filing oi the claim petition tili the date of i actual payment. 6f), ’Shri Saniay Agrawai, ieamed counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation’of Rs.60,000/' only though the appeiiantl claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resutting in permanent disability. 4) Shri AK. Athaley, teamed counsel for respondent No.1 Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand submitted that as the appellant oouid not establish that the iniuriee and traoture sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disabtiity, the compensation of Rs,6G,OGQ/— awarded by the Tribunal is iust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. '5) For the reasons best known the appeilant! claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunat to eetabiish the nature e of the injurieS said to have been 5u$tained by the appel!ant/ ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries tesuited in any permanent disabétity‘ 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal witheut examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be i'eiied upon as substantive evidence for the aesessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Ceurt in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reedy, reported in (24305) 12 SCC 139, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing iearned counsei for the respondent— ’ ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no iustification for the High Court to reiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by heating the injury as permanent disabitity to be 45 per cent. The Hioh Court committed gross error in overtookinq the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunai for none examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physicai disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and airvarded a just and fair compensation. The Hioh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeai; set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunat. The respondent-claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not . already been withdrawn.” .. ; 1 7) The Apex Ceurt in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aaéas Raju v, Yudhvir $ingh and anathea', reported in @698) 7 sCG 3&5, (eiiemted the same View with the foilowing observations in para 1 1 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appetiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself it was nht admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 69% was caicuiated onthe basis of the provisions of the 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 the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai 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 apptiCabiiity 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 firet time.” 8) in view of the above auoted dicta of the Apex Court in the bases of at? SR‘i‘C v. P. Thii‘upat Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh tt’tumar aiies Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificates produced by the appeliant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those ...w certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement nf thn campensation in the case. 9) W52, therefnre, do net find any scone for gn‘nancement of ihe campensanon awarded by the Tnbunal. ED) The appeal fiied by ihe appe§ianilciaimanf far enhancement of the eempeneatien, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ti) No order as to costs l’ Sd/_ ». i i I -R.N.Chand14akar i l 3d]. ‘ ¥ Judge Chief Justice 7 ;) I Judge e», subbu . i i i i l i vwijf - ,