HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI PFIASHANT KUIVIAR MISHRA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 638 of 2006. Appellant Sunii Prasad, aged about 35 years; Claimant son of Shri R.B. Prasad; Resident of Near Mata Choura, Kududand, Gali No.5, Bilaspur, Distrfct Bilaspur (C.G.). Resoondents VERSUS Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, aaed about 34 years, Son ,of Shri Chandram Sahu, Resident of Village Sankar, Akaltara, Poiice Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Dhananjay Sahu @ Sonu, aged about 23 years, Son of Shri Ram Sahu, Resident of Village Podidalha, Akaltara, Police Station Akattara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, UTt Building, In front of Rajiv PIaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.). ABpeaLU_nderSect[on 173 (2) of the IVIotor Vehicle Act.1988. Present: Shri S.P. Sahu, counsei for the appeltant. Shri Amit Kumar, counsel for respondents No.1&2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, eounsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (16th April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. fi 'iE.; •^-.. ! Appellant - Sunil Prasad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 105/2006. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.23,40,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.83,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri S.P. Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.83,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the othei- hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 5) Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 6) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW-1 in support of hisclaim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the -hj :,.B^>i;'^:i^...,. ^'"",. -^. Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as sutetantive 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 Hjgh Court committed gross error in overlookinci the factthat Dr. Sydhakar Reddv's medical certjficate was reiected bv 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 Hiqh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancina 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 withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in ^ ^ i" /^: (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following obsen/ations 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 the said certificate had not 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 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 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." ''-/ 9) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. ^["•"'^^'^"^g^WATO.W^:........ 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeai filed by the appellant/ctaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 121^N<) order as to costs. M Sd/- Chief Justice Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge subbu