HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J, Misc. Appeal (C) No.622 of 2008. Appellant Claimant Respondents Driver Owner Insurer Dharmendra Singh Rathore, aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Chitrabhan Singh Rathore, R/o Hardibazar, Tahsil Katghora and Distt. Korba. VERSUS Manoj Kumar Yadav, S/o Budhram Yadav, age about 25 years, R/o Jorhadbari Up Tahsil Hardibazar, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G) M/s Mahavir Global Coal (Pvt) Ltd. R/o A-13 Krantinagar, Near Gayatri Mandir, Bilaspur. The Oriental Insurance Company Through Divisional Office, Gitanjali Bhawan, Distt. Korba (C.G.). '^ Appeal under Section 173 (2) ofthe IVIotorVehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, counset for the appetlant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. OKDER •th (15InJune,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. fi Appellant/claimant Dharmendra Singh Rathore is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 163/2007. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.10.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,36,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- only though the appellant/daimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 20%. 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck, on the other hand contended that the compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. ^-••^ ~'<s P ^ssgsai^ •»;) ..l..y X 5) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 6) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that fhose injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal 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 fhe 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 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. Th^ Jjigh^ourLcommitted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected' bv the Tribunal for non- examinatiorLoUhat doctor^The Tribunal has determined jhe phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the depositlon of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair com£ensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, \; 1 8) 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." 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 following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. 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 hadjioLbeen examined. Unless the aythor^f the ^ertificate exammed^ himseLf.JL 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 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. 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 ouropinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." /Q^A i") \ \';:. 9) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, 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 alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) Mojardej^as to costs. Sd/- ^Chief Justice R.N. Chacdrakar Judse •ri&' r) subbu X \;