HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBtLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH € CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. M.A. (ClNo. 1395 of 2007 Applicant Sanjay Kumar iSingh, 'son of B.P. Appellant Singh, aged labout 35 years, residence of i House No. 14/476, Shivaji ChowK, Charoda Basti, Bhatapara, Charoda, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Non-apDlicants: Respondents VERSUS Dinesh Sharma, son of Shankarlal Sharma, agedj about 31 years, residence of jKargi Road, Ram Mandir Chowk, Patanpara, PoJice Station Kota, |District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), Shahid Ahmad, son of Shabbir Ahmad (Musaimaan) residence of M.i.G. 1/81 Hudko Bhilai, Tahsit and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (owner ofvehicle). Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Aakash Ganga, Supela Bhilai,; Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company). Misc ADpeal u/S 173of the IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, counsel for theappellant. A' ^ ORDER (22nd March, 2010) C5 % ® The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. Shri Om P. Sahu, learned counse! for the appeilant is herd on admission. 2) Appellant - Sanjay Kumar Singh is seeking enhancement ofthecompensationawarded by 7th Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No.43 of2005. 3). As against the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- claimed by theappellanVdaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.07.2004, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition ti!! the date of actual payment. 4). Shri Om P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,500/-only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW-1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellanVclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estatlish the nature Qf the injuries said to have been Y € ^ sustained by the appellant/ ctaimant in the motor accident and the fact thatthose injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribuna! 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 theApex Court in thecase 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 forthe respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the . High Court.we find that therewas no justification for the High Cburt to rely on the disabitjty certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance thecompensation by treating the injury as permanent disabjiity to be 45 per cent. The Miah Court •committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examinationof that doctor. The Tribunal has detel-mined the phvsical disabilitv at 15per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iustand fair CQmpensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina 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 withdraw the amount of ccmpensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadybeen withdrawn." ', 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v.Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in c (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same yiew 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 hospitaltreated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate wasissued,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 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 brougtit 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) In view of the above quoted cf/cte ofthe 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 medicalcertificate produced bythe appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issuecS the said certificate, cannot be takeninto consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ^' ^ ^'" ^ Subbu ^-^ 9) That apart, AW-1 Sanjay Kumar Singh (Claimant) in his evidence before the Tribunal admitted that on the date of the accident he was earning Rs.3,600/- per month only and on the date of his deposition before the Tribunal his income was of Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, it is apparent that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident did not adversely affect his future earning capacity at all. 10) For the foregoing reasons; we do not find any seope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. SdA ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge