H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH COIRAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHR1 RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appellants Claimant Misc. Appeal No. 1079 of 2004 Ganga Ram Dewangan, S/o Lal^iantal Dewangan, aged 48 years, Occupation - BSP Employee (SMS -1 Plant Attendant), Resident of Maitri Nagar 72/3-A, Street - 5B, Rteati, P.S. Newal, Tah&DisttDurg(CG) Versus Resoondents Non-applicants -.^' 1. Mudrika Prasad Singh, s/o Late Bhagwansingh, Aged 53 yers, R/o Plot No.7-B, St No.2 Ashish Nagar, Risali, Bhilai. PS Newai, Tah & Distt Durg (CG) Occupation - BSP Employee Vehicle No.MP 24 G / 3455 Driver and Regd Owner 2. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Ins Co Ltd., Malvlyanagar, Durg (CG) Policy issued - Office of the 01 Co Ltd., 9/1 Sough Gangotri Comptex, Supela Chowk, Supeta (Bhilai) Tah & Di^t Durg CG Vehicte No MP 24-G/3453 -- Insurance Regarding Co. Poticy No.3767 years 2C%)1 Prev. Policy No.3195 year 2001 Period from 22.11.2000to21.11.2001 MisceUaneous appeal under Sectton 173 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct Present: Shri N.K. Chgrtterjee, learned counset for tie appeBant. None for respondent No. 1 though served. Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (25th August, 2010) c^'^ I ^tM^m I^ I f '^ey / c' The following order of the Coyrt WQS passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Ganga Ram Dewangan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Addittonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 20-07-2004, passed in Claim Case No.10/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- daimect by theappellant/ clajmant by filing a claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him In the motor accident on 11-04-2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition tiH the date of actual payment. 3) Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Jearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Trtbunal has erred in awardtng low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only, though the appellant/ ctaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, teamed counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limtted, on the other hand, contended that the claimant has miserably faited (n estatolishing that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident r^ulted in any permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW1 Ganga Ram Dewangan and AW2 Anant .'v^'-5^&i^aa^,. i"^";';%j' ^...'^y v^^^?; dP Kumar) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before Vhe Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor acciderrt and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certjficate 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 leamed counsel for the r^pondwt- claimant who made an attempt to support the orcter of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabillty certifteate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabitity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed QTOSS error in overlookina the^fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medfoal certificate was reiected bv the Tnbunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsieal ctisabHitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposjtion of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, sel aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunat. The ^^^^esgondent-claimant is atlowed to withdraw the amount of \ —:'\ ",j%S&-.i ^. ^.-.,.-^' /'' ^c.2^' compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if ft has not already been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 308, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in questlon in thte ease was obtained after two yeare. 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 certlficate examined himself. it was not admissjble in evidence. Whether the dJsability 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 known as to wheAher 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 brougN on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to (he applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no applteation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the fiPBt 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 Raje^i Kumar alia^Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the r/ •^•^^'^- ^-.,. ^ .^ a^ } medical certificates produced by the clatmant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certtfteates, 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 Tribunat. 10) The appeal filed by the appeltant/claimant for enhancement of the Gompensation, therefore, is liable to be di^nissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- ;R.N.Chandrakar Judge ..J' nimmi