w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH 'BLE RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J. Mise.ADDea! (C) No.27 of 2010 Shyamsunder Verma, S/o Rambharos Verma, Aged abut 30 years, Vill: Konar Thana: Pamgarh, pst: Janjgir-Champa. Claimanf Non-Applicants Sanjay Yadav, S/o Sri Goyendri Ram Yadav, Vill: Mohra Thana: Sipat, Dist: Bilaspur. Goyendri Ram Yadav, Aged abut 51 years, Vill: Mohra Thana: Sipat, Dist: 3. Natjonal Insurance Company Ltd. ThrougK Divisional Manager, Kosabadi, Korba Dist: Korba. jVIernorandynrofIVlisc.AoDealunderSection 173 of the Motor VehJclesAct Present: Shri V.A. Goverxlhan,eoynselfQrtheappellant. (14th January, 2010) The following, order of the Court was passed by Rajeev.Gupta,C.J..', .:Xlt''-,.:.: •.':; • ; '::. 1 -' Shri ^/.A. Goviyxlhan, tearned coynsel for the appellant is fteard on.admission.. , , . 2) Appellant- Shvamsyncisr rma is seeking enfiancement of ttie comRensationt awarded by Second Additional Motor .^i ••-\ : . . ":.;: ;.: '.••/ ' Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.10.2009, passed in Claim Case No.45/2009. 3). As against the compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- claimed by t'ne appellanUclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act forthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 4). Shri V.A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding'iow compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multipie serious injuries.including fra^tures in the motor accidentresultingin permanentdisability. 5) From para 16 of the award, we gather that the appe!!ant/ ciaimant did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establish 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 disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before fhe^Tribunal vflthout examining the Doctor who issued the ce^tificate can be reiied upor, assubstantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for eonsideration before the Apex Court in the case of A,P. SRTC v. ..^- P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in(2005) 12SCC 189, wherein it was obsen/ed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant whQ madean attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification forthe 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 eent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in pyerIookLng t_he fact lhat_D_L Sudhakar Reddv's medical certLficate_was_reiected bv the Tribuna! for non- examinatjon ofthatdoetor. TheTribunal has determined the phvsicai disabilitv at 15 per centon the basis ofthe / . •" .. '' • ,: de[30sjtion_Qf Dr^ K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and faic compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing 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 towithdraw 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 Rajuv. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "11. The certifi^ite in question in this case was obtained after two ^ears. It is not known as towhether the Civil Surg'^on of the hospital treated ttie appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years, after theaccident took place is not known. The author of the_said_certificate_had not been examined. Unless the autttor^of the certificateexamined himself, it was not ^- B r- admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwlse is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such acertifjcate. It even does not appear thaf the contentions raised before us had either been raised before th~e Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on r&cord 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) 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 aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Smgh and another (Supra), the medical certiflcates produced bythe appellant/claimant beforethe Tribunal without examining the Doctor vi/ho had issued those certificates, cannot be taken intoconsideration 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. ; 113). The appeal filed by tl^ appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, Iherefbre, is liable to be dismissed and is '%"\ hereby dismissedsummarity. Sd/- Chief Justice .Sd^..,'::.' R.N.CUaridrakar Judge '*)• .^•: subbu .^