HIGH COU CORAM: Agpeaiant CEaimant Resnondents Nan-Aggiicant Qriver OE Vehiche Owner Ensus’er Misc. AQQeaI under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Ab 4 RT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH HON’ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HGN’ELE SHRI SUNEL KUMAR SENHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 71 of 2004. Chintaram, S/o Ramavatar Prajapati, Aged 33 years, R/o Village Mohara, RS. Laibag, Rajnandgaon, Tahsi! and District Ramandgaon (C.G.. XIERSUS 1. Bauaram; S/o Bhaiyalal Markam @ Dewar, aged abouf 23 years, R/o vmage Tumdibod, P.S. Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Sio Rammi Sharma, Aged about 30 years, R/o Vilfage Tumdibod! P.S. Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3. The National lnsurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). fun, r988. None Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Present : Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the appeHant. for respondents No. 1 and 2. The follow J. Eng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C. ' Appellant/claimant Chintaram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims ORDER {23th July, zone) a s ) Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.1 1 .2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.46I1998. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,71,000/— claimed by the appellant/ claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.02.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1?,200/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low ‘ compensation of Rs.1?,200fe only, though the appellantfclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures inthe motor accident. 4) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsei for respondent No.3- The National insurance Company Limited, on the other hand. supported the award and contended that as the appellant could not establish that the injuries and the fractures said to have been sustained by the appellanti claimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent ,disabiiity, no enhancement of the compensation is warranted in this appeal. 5} For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. a s \ \ \\\ j 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai 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 AP. SRTC v. P. Thirtipal Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “8. 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 High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected .bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition‘of Dr.“ KM. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiqh 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 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) ? SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to Whethet the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess‘the author of the certificate examined himself it was not admissibie 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. lt is also not known 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. ln 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) ln View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupat Reddy (Supra) and Raiesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those 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. @ 10) The appeal filed by the appeliani / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefdre, dismissed and is hereby dismissed. is Iiable to be w ii) No order as to costs. ' \’~% m_ VWE" e ‘. ‘ K SUM ‘ .Sq'! /~ ‘fry J _ / l i f Stu. e a ‘ L Chief Justice \L - / / __ Kama." ginha e ~ r Judge 7