^•l'v""-l}» g 1>,,:.<^®?, ^ffS^y^ v:^.^^'"' y? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) PR No. 1712 of 2011 ^^Cc) J79( i.i Appellant : Smt. Santoshi Bai, aged about 31 Claimant years, wd/o late Ramesh Kumar Yadav, r/o village Bade Urla, post & Thana Abhanpur, tah. and distt. Raipur C.G. Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Jogendar Singh Sikh, aged about 58 years, s/o Sher Singh Sikh, occupation Truck Driver, r/o Gurunanak Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Driver of the vehicle M/s Harmeet Roadways, through Managing Director, Bilaspur Road, fafadih, Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of the vehicle United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Sashtri Chowk, Raipur. Insurance Co. ofthe vehicle. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the appeilant. ORDER (62nd August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ?*--\ ^ M.A.C.PRNo. 1712 of 2011 ^ Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) AppellanV claimant Smt. Santoshi Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.01.2011, passed in Claim Case No.50/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a claimpetition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 29.11.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.59,000/- 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 S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.59,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 5) From para 9 of the impugned award, we gather that neither any disability certificate was produced before the Tribunal nor any doctor was examined to establish the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. M.A.C.PRNO. 1712 of 2011 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.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- 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 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 deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, 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 v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : M.A.C.PRNo.1712of2011 \1 "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 knowh 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) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates, 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), 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. M.A.C.PRNo.1712of2011 ^' 10) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed on merits summarily, notwithstanding that it is barred by time. —— ~ SUODU Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge