HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HGN’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeal (C) No. 110 of 2006 Appeilant Ishwar Sahu Sio — Bhagi Ram Sahu, Ciaimant aged about 29 years, Rio Village Silauti, Tahsil — Kurud, Dist: — Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Parsadi Ram S/o Kaleshwar, aged about 45 years, Rio RAmnagar Shamshan Ghat, Supeia Nala, P.S. Supela, (Bhiiai) Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 2 S.D iri S/o Triveni Giri, aged about 63 years,‘ /o G.W.S. 285, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai,‘Distt. — Durg (C.G.) 3 The United india Insurance Company Ltd. Bhiiai, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) Misceiianeous Appeal under Section 173 of Meter Vehicles Act Present : Shri YC Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23” February, 2011) The following order .of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant lshwar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims \ W r xA~.«“,‘.. H Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 08.05.2006 passed in Claim Case No.626/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,70,000/—, claimed by ) ‘ the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the MotorrVehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dateof actual payment. 3) Shri YC Sharma and Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant yehemently‘ argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No3 the United lndia Insurance Company Limited on the other hand Q supported the award and contended that as the claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.6,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri Manish Upadhyay, learned oounsei for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the aWard. 6) Before the Tribunal claimant lshwar Sahu examined himself alone in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to ‘i \ ‘i Vb establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those 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 the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Raddy reported in (2G05) 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 lesued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and ' enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore th'e 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.” jg .\ \ \ (i 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and anather, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 3'05, reiterated the same View with the foliowing 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 Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of-thé said certificate had not been examined Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether thedisability 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 materiais 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 our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 9) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before‘thte Tribunai without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in r the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs 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 Tribunai. 11) The appeal, filed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. /~At~"—‘/ Sdl- Sdl— i Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice l Judge