ri HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR ibout 58 '.S. Hirri, Versus 1. Purnesh Kumar Bag Das, aged about Village Sodhi 'athariya, Dlstrict Son of i, Caste- Mahra, aged years, R/o. Village-Him, )istrict Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) 2. Latel Das Baghel, S/o. S.D. Baghel, aged 49 years, R/o. Viliage Sodhi (Marathi).Post - Sodhi. P.S. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Lirnited, B-1, Taha Complex, Ring Road, Offlce Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) iiscsllaneous appeai under Section 1 73^of the^ffotor Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for the appel S.C. Verma, counse! for respondsnt No. 3. (12.04.2012) 1. Instant appeal has been filed by enhancement of compensation in the award dated 23.08.2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!; Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunai') in Claim Case No.72/2007. \: 2. As againstthecompensationofRs.8,18,000/-claimedbyt appellanVclaimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of les Act for the injuries sustained by him in the 15.03.2012 by Hero Honda SS motor cycte registration Nb, CG. 10/8712, ^?--t~ !^': "_. Y' !'".- '^ '<s» 1 ^S'SS-'^i 1 s.s '^€.< '^SS r>^ 1 of Rs.9,000/- aiong of fillng of clalm petition its actual payment. 3. Leamed Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence it held that the accident has occurred due to rash negligent driving of Hero Honda SS motor cycle bearing registration No. CG.10/8712 by its driver i.e. respondent No.1; awarded aforesaid 4. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, ieamed counsel appearing ilthough the appeltant has not exami doctor to prove the injuries sustained by him in the accident, however, Tribunal has tion of Rs.9,000/- 5. have heard learned counsel for the appeilant and perused the material available on record including impugned award. 6. The Supreme Court In case of A.P. SIRTC v. P. in 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as ynder: lai ^: We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and snhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court commltted gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. ! ^"^~^&.\ !-^' ...'. "^i'.^ J/r"^ "%. 9// ConsequenUy, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the followi observations in para 11 : "11.The certificate in quesUon in ttsis case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civi! 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 the said certiflcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated on the basls 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 raissd befors us had either been raised before the Tribunat or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on t'ne 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 Dermitted to be raised for the tirst time." Court in case of Pradeep Kumar vide order dated 31 March, 'Y-"' \: 2009, placing its reliance upon the dicta of Supreme Court in the cases referredabove held in para 8 as under: ^ "8. !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. 3RTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy and another (supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissibte in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the is Doctor to prove the injury sustained in the accident and to prove the ioss. in Injury reports, certif the Doctor issuins admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as s. ..v-y compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge \