HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ADpellarrt Claimant Respondents Non-applicants MANo.844of200S Mohd Shakeel S/o Gulam @ lc^al, Age 30 years R/o Sadar Road, Bagadi Para, Aarang Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Babul @ Shekhar S/e Karmaka-, Driver, R/o Bangoli, Aarang, Distt Raipur 2 Smt Karuna Tiwari, Owner W/o Ramesh Tmari Aakansha Travels Main Road, Aarang Dlstt Raipur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Co.Ltd Thror ; Dh/isional Manager, Kutctery ChowK, Raipur (CG) Misc Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehIcle Act. 1988 I, il >1 Present : Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri P Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (3riJufy72009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additionat Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 15.04.2005 passed in Ctalm Case No.40/2(X)4. --""*"•*-A*~-**;,,a«n»*w»ji*astf»ilf irtMMB [\\ 2) As against compensatlon of Rs.14,0),(XX)/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant Mohd Shakeel by flling a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustatned by him on 26.06.2006, when the minibus bearing registration No.CG 04-ZA-0218 met with an accident as the body of the bus came in contact with high tension wire due to the rash and negligent drivlng of its driver, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/-/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tltl the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel Tor the appellant vehementty argued that the Tribunat has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.15,000/- only, though the appdlant/ctaimant sustained multlpte burn injuries in the motor accident. 4) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to esteblish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certfficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who fesued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence tor the assessment of the compensation came up for consideraUon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs 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 'f^: It) justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the dlsabBity certiflcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy aml enhance ths compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabilityto be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiooldna the fact that Dr Sudhatear Reddv's medical certlflcate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on Uie basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensadon. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina ttie compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal. set aside the impugned order and restore the award of ttie Claims Tribunal. The respondeht-clalmant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensaUon awarded by Uie Tribunat, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6) 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 follovwng observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in quesfion in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whetherthe CivitSurgeon of the hospitaltreated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two yeara after the accident took ptece is not known. The author of the said certificate had n<A been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabilrty at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Wortanen's Compensation Act or ottierwise is not known. It is atso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. It even does not appear tttat the contentions raised before us had either been ^.a iBta»«*ias»ay*« y!-.. i-s^rfs8'',^ raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court. therefore, proceected on the materials brought on record by the partles. 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 applicaUon, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7) In view of the above quoted dicta aS the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal withoiA examintng the doctor, who had issued those certificates cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma