\<L HIGH COURT OF CHHATT6SGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^^^^IIB^ ^ CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No.160S of Appellant Nori-Applicants Lakhaniai @ Lakhanram, S/o Late Mohan Lai Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o Viilage Kalartarai, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsii and District Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Sonik Sahu, S/o Johan Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o Viliage- Bhoyna, Poiice Station Arjuni, Tahsll and District Dhamtari (CG) Narayan Singh, S/o Revaram, aged not known, Caste Sahu, R/o Viilage-Bhoyna, Poiice Station Arjuni, Tahsii and District Dhamtari (CG) Bajaj Ailianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through: The Manager Aiiianz Genera! tnsurance Company Limjted Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Marg Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) MSsce!ianeoys appeag U/s 173 ofthe MotorVeMclesAct_1988 Present: Shri PP Sahu and Shri SP Sahu, counsel for the appeliant. ORDER gth (04tn January, 2010) The folEowlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev-Gupta, CJ. ^ Shri PP Sahu and Shri SP Sahu, learned counsei for the appeilant are heard on admission. 2. Appeiiant - Lakhania! @ Lakanram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 14.09.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 39/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- clalmed by the appellant/ciaimant by fijing a ciaim petstion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31.01 .2007, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.49,042/- as compensation along with Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the oiaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 4. Shri PP Sahu and Shri SP Sahu, iearned counsei for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred jn awarding low compensation of Rs.49,042/- oniy though the appeliant/claimant sustalned multipie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabiiity. 5. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ ciaimant, 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 resulted in any permanent disabiSity. r^ -k^^st¥v ^s^^^^' 6. The question v^hether the medica! certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reHed 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. 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- ciaimant 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 disabiiity 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 OYeriookincj the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicaj certificate was reiected by the Tribunai for non- examinatlon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhysjcal disab!lLty_aL15 per cent on the basis of the de.Dosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hlah Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentty, we aliow this appea!, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant Is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compsnsation awarded by the Tribunat, 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 foilowing observations in para 11 : a ^'sSS^ ffl ^ .^^^"•^J ^i "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to vi/hether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was Issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the sajd certjfic^te had npt been examjned,_ Unless ihe author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis of 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. Et even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribuna! as aiso 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 applicabiiity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8. ln 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. Yudhvlr Slngh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appeilant/claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued the said 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. ,.-"si^ ^ .A- f7 f'-. ^- ^ subbu 10. The appeal filed by the appe!Eant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge