y liLGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISiON BENCH CORAM: HON?BLE SHRl RAJEEV ©UPTA,C.J. HON'BLE SHR1 RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J (, ADpellant Ciaimant Respondents MANo.126Sof2004 Rajendra Sane, son of Late Shri Baivvant Sane, aged about 40 years, resldent of B-19, Lav Kush Vihar, Choubey Coiony Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1 Rajkumar, son.of Nandkishore Mundra, aged 46, Giriraj Agency, Ram nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Distrlct Durg 2 Natlonai Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional manager, ARash Ganga Comptex, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg IVJiscADDea! underSection 173 ofthe MGtorVehldeAct.1988 Present : Shri HB Aarawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawat, counsel for the appeliant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER sth (25tn January, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Rajendra Sane is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2 (® c, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.07.2004 passed in Ciaim Case No.175 of1999. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/-, claimed by the appeiiant/claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.02.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri HB Agrawai, learned Senior counsei for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,000/- oniy. 4) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Nationai Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that, as the appellant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulting in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) For the reasons best known to the appeilant / ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appetIanVcEaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. KQ^':-. ^^'^A'^"^^ c^? "^ ^^^' .^^' :"<t.^^g^y^" L. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the cSaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatlon came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs 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 - ciaimant 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 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medica! certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a Just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred Jn dtsturblna the same and enhancinq the compensatjon. Consequentiy, 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 Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in ,-?s<'?T"s%, /^^'v\ 1 8 ^. ^K . ^ / '%. "v^y 4 (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certtficate 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 appeliant. 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 ofthe certiflcate examined himself. itwas not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calcuiated 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 applicabiEity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appSication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thlrupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar ailas Raju Vs Yudhvlr Singh and another (supra), the medical certificate produced by the appeilant/ctaimant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. •^: .—. w^^^-. :- ''^'"^^^-'~^'.. i..' C^) (.. ^ padma 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal, filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R^.Chandrakar ^ ^ Judge