HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVI$ION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. ‘_—— Misc. Appeal No. 282 of 2005 Devendra Kumar Gurla, s/o Gurla Nanu Mera. a'ged about 18 ye‘ars, caste Mahara, R/o Viuage Gutaiguda, Post Nimed, P.S. & Tah. Bhopamatnam,’ Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) - Versus Appellant Claimant _ Respondents Non-applicants 1. Shri Michcha Ramaiya, 3.0 Michcha Masa, Assistant Teacher, Tribal Welfare Department, Primary School Chandoor, Rio Wlage Golaguda, Post Chandangiri, Tah. Bhopalpatnam, Distt. Dantewada C.¢G. (Owner & Driver) The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, distt’Bastar(C.G.) Misceuaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Subhash Yadav, leamed counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1 though sewed. Shri Sudhir Agrawal. learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (25m August, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CtJ. Appellant Devendra'Kumar Gurla is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded rby the Motor Accident Claims i \l ~l \ Tribunal, Dantewada (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 13-01-2005, passed in Claim Case No.75/2003. 2) As against the compensation of ’Rs.3,79,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by Wing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. - 3) r Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel 'for respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that the-claimant has miserably failed in establishing that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW1 Devendra Kumar Gurla and AW2 Lambadi Ramesh) in support of his claim. 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 appellant] claimant in the motor accident i T‘Ul ii /sasr xi, i 1L , and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) 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 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 v 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 by 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 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 the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondentplaimant 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 "i xi <9: l l W Qt (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the 'following observations in para 11 : “11. The certmcate In question m this case was‘ obtained after two years It Is not known as to whether the Civit Surgeon of the hosprtal treated the appellant. 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. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it 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 othenNise is not known. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the HighkCpurt. 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 t 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 A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the claimant before athe‘Tribunal . Without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates annot be taken into consrderation for enhancement of the compensation in the case. *7 xi‘ i 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) Theappeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. l X ' i Sly. 3 Rangnath Chandrakar \ Judge Sd/— Chief Justice x i: