COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR BENCH HON'BLE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appejlant Res@ondenis Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1097 of2008 Ghanshyam Meshram S/o. Shri Nathu Meshram, aged about 54 years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No.4, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Claimant) Versus 1. Pusauram S/o. Shri Dhanshram, R/o aged 65 years, Nutgn Chowk, Sahu Para, Bhi!ai-3, Tahsil & District Durg (Owner) 2. Kartikram Kunjam S/o Sonauram Kunjam R/o Kektitoia, Tehsii Chovvki, district Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) 3. Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd., Tara Complex, G.E. Road, District Bhilai, Branch - Kamptee !ine, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Insurer) iViemorandurri of appeaS ynder Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Vehlcies Act. 1988 Present: Shri Anoqp Majumdar and Shri P. Dutta, tearned counsel f6r the appeliant. ORDER (21st July, 2010) The foliowlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. .-^r-\ t1.- Shri Anoop Majumdar and Shri P. Dutta, learned counse! for the appellant are heard on admission. 2) Appe!!ant - Ghanshyam Meshram is seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19-02-2008, passed in Claim Case No.75/2007. 3) As against the compensatlon of Rs.7,15,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Sectlon 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accsdent on 09-09-2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.68,900/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition till the date of actuai payment. 4) Shri Anoop Majumdar and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensatjon of Rs.68,900/- oniy, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multipie serious injuries induding fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability. 5) Bsfore the Tribuna! the claimant examined himself alone as AW/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. m .^2 6) 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 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. Thsrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for ths 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 disabiiity 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 overlQokinci jhe fa^tthaj Dr^udha^^ Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examination pf tnat doctor, The Tribunal has determined fie phvsical disabititv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition 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 th8 Claims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, relterated the same view wlth the followlng observations in para 11: F "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the CMI Surgeon of the hospstal treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certjficate was issued 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 Rnown. St 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 materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our oplnion, 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. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar a!ias Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribuna! 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. ^•!i ^ •^. ^sa^ /^^ ^y) 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/daimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge