^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D1VISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT Claimant M.A.(C) No.1460/2009 Khomram Dhruv, S/o Nathu Ram Dhruv, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Thelki, P.S. & Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 VERSUS Bahadur Singh Salam, S/o Chamaru Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Raipur, Qr. No.78, Anand Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Brijesh Singh, S/o Rajnarayan, Aged about 23,years, R/o Panchpeddi Naka, P.S. Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Reliance General Insurance Company, Shop No.412413 Floor Ravi Bhavan Jai Stambha Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (INSURER) IViEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri CR Sahu and Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (18th November, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. '-^"^-•-. ^k^^1^^^' 2. Appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.11 .2009, passed in claim case No. 55/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant, by filing a clajm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri CR Sahu and Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries including fractures sustained by the appellant / claimant in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabiljty. 5. From Para 7 of the impugned award we gather that though the appellant / claimant examined as many as two witnesses before the tribunal including himself (AW/1 Khomram and AW/2 Subhadra) in support of his claim, for the reasons best known to him, no doctor was examined before the 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. :f'i ^v- ^KI 6. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal wlthout 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 the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported jn (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justjfication 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 Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. 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 Clajms 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 Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : •^'K "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." 8. 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 certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ~^ 10. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. - ———- - - Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma ^it •--^-—- c' .^.