HEGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BELASPUR @IVISION BENCH CGRAM: HGN’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appea! No. 26? 0f 2004. Kamta Prasad Joshi, S/o. Shri Garibaram Joshi, aged about 30 years, Rio. Gram- Delkabandha, P.S. — Abhanpur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). Appeilani VERSUS Respandents 1. Gurudayal, S/o. Rattilai Sonbarsa, Driver of Jeep, R/o. Panchpendi Naka, Sarvodai Nagar, Near Shukla Petrol Pump, Bahind Chopra Transport Raipur (CG). 2. Sewakram Sahu, S/o. JR. Sahu, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Owner of Jeep, Raipur {C.G.). 3. The Natienal Insurance Co. Ltd. C/o. Genera! Manager, GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.). Memorandum of Aggeal under Section 173 of the Moior Veh§c§es Aer, 1988. r‘/\ Present : Shri Arun Koohar and Shri Amrt Kumar Sharma, Iearned counsel for the appeliant. ORQER (30m Jury, zuoe) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. a Shri Arun Kochar and Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 2) Appellant/claimant Kamta Prasad Joshl is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth e 2 @ Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribuna!’) vide award dated 12.11.2003, passed in Ciaim Caée No.1 35/2002. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- claimed by the appeilant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Aci, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date oi actual payment. 4) Shri Arun Kochar and Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.60,000/— oniy, though the appeliant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident which also resutted in permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal; the claimant examined himself as AW—1. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, 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 resuited in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for a @ consideration before the Apex Coun in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (2905) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent— cieimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no iustifioation for the High Court to reiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compeesation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overtooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy'e medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non— examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr‘. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hioh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently. we altow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent~ctaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 7) Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2&0?) T SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para ‘l 1 : The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raiesh “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii 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, Uniess the s author cf the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis cf the provisions 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 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 aiso 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 applicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion; ex tacie 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. Thirupai Raddy (Supra) and Raiesh 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 filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. a SUbbLl /V ‘ Sdl- l sai- Sinha Chief Jus‘ice i Sun“ Kumar Judge