HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIVISION BENCH {¥ CGRAM. HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J " 0"! BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J Misc Appeai No. 423 of 2W2 Siddiuui Mohammad Khan slo. Mahar'nmad Khan, 47 years, rio. Gule Sattar Khan Sama, Beside Ajanta Tiies FactOfy Mohaila Bochiya, REWA (MP) at present E.W.SI1 O1, Padnabhpur, Durg {CG). Versus Appenant Claimant I i ‘xx Respondent’s 1. Santosh Kumar Verma, Slo. Chamru Non-apaiicant Ram, 25 years, Rio. Bijapur, P.S. Bijapur, Distt. Bastar, Now 'Distt. Dantewada Abdul Saiam s/o Shri Majid Khan R/o Bijapur, Rsfsijabur, Distt. Bastar'Nom} Distt Dantewada. 3. United india Insurance Co. Ltd.,Raipur, through Braneh Manager United india insurance Co Ltd Jagdalpur Distt Basiar Miscellaneous appeai under Section 173 of the Meter ‘Jehicle Act Present : Shri P'rar'uii Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. {25m Fggggg, 29w) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mohammad Khan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, (for short ‘the Appellant Siddiqui R s . i? Tribunai’) vide award dated 27.02.2002 passed in Ciaim Case i No.246/2GO1. 2) As againSt the compensation of Rs.6,64,000I-, claimed by the appellant/ciaimant by ming a claim petition under Section 166 of g i the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.09.1997, the Tribune! awarded a totai sum of i i Rs.70,000/— as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from‘the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. ‘ 3i "Shri Prafuil Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel l for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.70,000/'- only, though the appellantfclaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Eefore the Tribunal though the claimant examined as many as three witnesses inctuding himseif (AW/t Siddiqui Mohammad, AWI2 Narendra Kumar Jain and Ami/3 Bichiya Rao, for the reasons best known to the appeilant l ctaimant, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by l the appeliant/ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that‘those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. L 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who - issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence l l l l l l l l . l l l l i for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration @ before the Apex Court in the ca$e of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was pbserved in para 6 as under :‘ “6. After hearing learned counse! for the respondent -— ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justitication for the High Court to reiy on the disability certihcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating. the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlogKing the tact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certihcate was reiected by the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai as d' mi ed ' e h si at disab‘it at 15 er cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred 'n disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal. set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to wtthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, tf it has not already been withdrawn.” The Apex Court tn a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh ; Kumar alias Raju \r's Yudhvtr‘Stngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations tn para 11 “11. Thecertiticate in question in this case was obtained after two years. tt is not known as to Whether the Civt! Surgeon of the hospital treated :5) l l l l l l t m l t l : the appeilant. On what basis, such a ceniflcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. certihcate had not been examined. Unless the - author of the oertitioate examined himeeif. it wee not eeimieeible in evidenee. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmenfs Compensation Act l or otheiwise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even d'oes not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been - raised beforethe Tribunal orthe 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 ermitted to be raised for the hrst time.” 7)- cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supta). the medical certificate arid the disability certificate produced by he t appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued the those certincates, 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. j ln View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the p padma 9) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. H. ,7,‘ Sd/- i'j R.N.Chandrakar CHIEF JUSTICE i 1‘ Judge