>f. COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'SLE-SHRS RANGNATH CHANDR Misc ApReai No.32 of 2004, Cteirnant ResDondents EL! E£.^ttikif<fc'fti»» ^on-appsrcants Shgnkar. S/o Arjun, 32 years, R/o Raikots, P.S, Kodenaar, Dlstt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), Versus Shyam Kumar Nag, S/o Lakhmu Ram Nag, R; Mangnasr, Hlrmapars, P. Dharbha. Distt. Bastar. 2 Shamu Kashyap, S/o Tunda Kashyap, R/o Dilmlill, Raikote, P.S, Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar. 3 The Unlted Indla insurance Co. Ltd. Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Sastar (Chhattlsgarh). MIsc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Shri Prafuli Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appeiiant, None for respondents No.1 and 2 thcugh served. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel wlth Shri Anand Gupta.counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >!h 28m August, The followina order of the Court was passed bv Appeltant Shankar is seeking enhancement of the comDensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.11.2003, passed in Claim Case No.64/2003. 2) As against the'compensation of Rs.3,05,000/-, claimed by the appettanVclaimant by flting a ciaim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.82,200/- as compensation to the claimantalong with interest @. 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiontill the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argyed that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low compensation of Rs.82,200/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includins fractures in the motor accident, resuiting in permanent dlsabitlty to theextentof53%. 4) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the oth.er hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.82,200/- awarded by the Tribuna! is rather on the higher side. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himseif alone as AW-4 jnsupport of the claim. For the reasons best known to the appeliant 7 claimant, no'-doctor was examined before the Tirbunal to establlsh the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/clalmarit in the motor accldent and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 3 6) The questlon whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before th.e Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certlflcate can be reiied upon as substantive evldence for the assessment offhe compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thlrupal 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 Gourt 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 percent. The Hiah Court commltted aross error in overtooklna 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 Dhvsicai disabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we altow this appeal, set aside the impugned order .and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. / The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount ofcompensation 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 allas Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 4 (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The-certiflcate 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 certiflcate was issued two years after the accident took place Is not known. The author of the said certjficatejTM not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evldence. Whetherthe disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provlslons of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcats. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contentioR having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no apptication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be ralsed for the first time." 8) ' Iti view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs "P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medicai certificate and the disabitity certificate produced by the appeilant/claimant before the Tribunal wlthout examining the 5 Doctors who had issued those certificates, 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, flied by the appellant/ctaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. :^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge subbu