lc €. -^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVtStON BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1483 6f 2008 Appellant Ciaimant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Ghhotu Ram S/o. Tula Ram Khaikho aged about 47 years occupation service in SECL R/o viilage Bhadi (Janakpur) P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koria C.G. Versus 1. Vinod Kumar S/o Kanta Ram Kushwaha aged about 23 years occupation Driver. 2. Smt. Savitri Devi Kushwaha W/o Kanta Ram Kushwaha, . aged about 50 years occupation vehicje owner. Both of resident of vill. Sarhari P.S. Pratappur Distt. Surguja C.G. 3. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Manendragarh Road (Near Ambedkar chowk) Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLEACT. 1988 Present: Shri Ashok Shukla, Jearned counsel for the appeJlant. QRDER |th (24m September, 2009) The foHowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Ashok Shukla, iearned counsej for the appellant is heard on admission. i-^.l!-b 2. Appellant Chhotu Ram. is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Koria (Baikunthpur) (for short 'the Tribunal') victe award dated 10.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 107/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- claimed by appellant/ claimant Chhotu Ram by filing a claim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehieies Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident on 07.01.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actualpayment. 4. Shri Ashok Shykla, learned counsel for theappellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained muitiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himseif alone as AW1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellanfc^ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the natureofthe injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant jn 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 the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certifScate can be relied upon as substantive evidence forthe assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs.P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para6 asunder: "6. After hearing Jearned counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rety on the disability certificate issued by Dr: Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent dlsability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact thaf Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certifscate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv atlS per cent on the basis of the deDosition 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 appeaj, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Tribunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded hythe Tribunal, jf it has not aiready been wjthdrawn." 7. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations inpara 11 : " 11. The certificate in question in thiscase was obtained after two years. jt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon ofthe 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 exammed. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseff. 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 known as towhether he was competent to, issue such acertificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the .1-— 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'9 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 d/cte of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs.P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certiricate 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 fiied by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. f7 Sd/- Chief Justice nimmi Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge E~1