HSGH COURT CF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIW$§0N BENCH CQRAN HQNEBLt aliRl RAJEEV GUPTA L J 8: %§3N’3LE SHR: RAW‘NAT V ANW‘AKnR, J Wiésc. imbeai N0. 927 of 26(14 Teekuram, son of Rameshar, aged , abam 4G .ears, res§dent 0f ‘v‘mage Ghathoii, PO Nawal, Tah. and Police Station Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) £E§$§§§E‘ 1V‘ VERSUS Ram“ son of Bhuiaumm Sahu aae years res:dem of Bardev PS Re'snondent 1 l I ‘ i i I I x s and Tah Nawaaarh Distt Durg (Ch mil§Sgarh) Anneai under $ecti0n 1m 0f the Metar Vehicies Act, 1938 Pgresent : Shri SR Sahu, counsel for the appeliant. 3m Sanjay Agn’awal, ceunse! for the respergdent. ORDER (Mm Qctaber, 2am) a The following order of the Court was passed by Rejeev Gupta, (LL Aooeliant — Teekuram is eeekino enhancement of the oompeneatron awarded by the Addmonal Motor Accrdent Ciarms Wrrbunel Bemetara Dietrrct Durg (for short ‘the Tnbunal) \Irde ieward defer)? 06-08 2064‘ passed in Ciarm Case No 18i2QD4 As agarnst the compensation of Rs.4,10,0QO/- ctalmed by the appeitant/oleiman‘t by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 w“‘% r r r y ) @ the hlc rnjrr ai im I tn Motor Veies Act for the ues sustned by h n e t ac n 0 00 the Tbunal awarded a tél sum oor cxéent o 3 O6 23 ri to R OOI— as ooensan along h rnterest 6% per nm frem the date of fm of the clm peon ll th date f nu na ar titi ti e o tl pamen oua vt hri S.P. ahu learned cosel for the appelfant S S, un ehementi argued that e Triunat has erred in awardin onty QOI- a3 compensation though the appettant lmant t s1 O / cai usinecl ultile aerious inluries in the moto accident nd ta mp r a t subsntial amount on treatment. p n ta f ) Shri Saniav Aarawal learned couneel or the respondent n rhe other hand suooorted the award and contended that as $i m~_vv_ mm 4;_aav_a 0“- v a j the claimant could not estabiish that the iniuries sustained by ham l the motor accident resulted in anv permanent disability, the comoensanon of R51 000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and rooer compensation in the facts and circumstances of the resent cased a 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as three witnesses including himself (AW1 Teekuram, AW2 Mohaniai Nishad and AW3 Lataram) in support of his claim. For l the reasons best known to the appetlant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Iribunal to establish the nature of the iniuries said to have been sustatned by the claimant in the motor acoident and the tact that those inturies resulted in any l §’ i P i i i i ( i i i t t 1 permanent disability. t ‘f si O mofro Wit (a) \{y th b g 1 _ 6) :The question whether the medisal certificate produced by th daimant before the Tribunai without examining the D‘octor r i WTO issued the certificaie can be relied upon as substantive eTIdence for the aesessment of the compensation came up for a: F’ 'if'hirupai Reddy, reported in (2905) 12 SCC 183, wherein it Wfe observed in para 6 as under: nsideratien before the Apex Court in the caee of AP, SRTC v, G “'6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- High Court,‘we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rety on the disability certificate issued by Dr. $udhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the iniury es permanent disability to be 45 per cent. ‘ The Hioh Court committed gross error in overlookino the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the ohvsicai disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition cf Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a lust and fair compensation. The Hidh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancino the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow 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." l } claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Q Ex i l ~ , 7i The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh komar alias Raiu vi ‘fudhvir $ingh and another,» reported in i2f308; 7 SCC W5. reiterated the same View with the following observations in para 11 : i i @ “A11. The certificate in question in this case was Eff obtained after two years lt is not known as ta whetper the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was iesued two years after the aooident took piece is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniese the author‘of the certificate examined himsetf. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the dieabitity at 60% V ‘wae caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. itis also not known as to whether he was competent to issue suche certificate it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised i before the Tribunal or the High Court, The Tribunal as i also the High Court, therefore; proceeded on the i materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of i l l 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.” The medical certificate produced by the claimant before the iT‘ribunai without examining the doctor who hadiseued the said certificate, in view of the alcove quoted dicta of the Apex Court in Etne cases of AR. $RTC v. P. Thirupal Roddy (Supra) and iRaiesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another i.(Sopra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We. therefore; do nottind any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; ~ i i i i i i i i r i £ i8) r i i l , i i i 10 The appeai fiied by the appellantlclaimant for enhancement ) Qf the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. JV , sdl- Sdl- ; , i i RN.Chandrakar i Chief Justice: i Judge i