HIGH COURT OF CHE-iATTiSGARH AT giLASPUR Dwasiow Dam” . CGRAM: i-mWELE $HF§i “RAJEE’V GUPTA, (3.3. H0; ”m t mun“ ”M“ MATH CHANDRAKAR,J M.A.No.836 6f 29% Annei'hni Onkar Prasad S'ahu: 3/0 Mehe‘tru Sahu, CEa.mant aged abaut 18 yeara RIO vmage 8: P0§t Koyas‘a, PS. Kharora, Via-Bhaisa Disti- Post Ghushapa£i, Dist’z-Mahasamund (CG) MisceiEaneaus {Anneai u!s17’3 of the Motor Vemcles Act. 1%3 Preseni :7 ‘ $hri SC. Verma and Shri Aditya Khare, counsei forthe appeiiant. EERDEE 9.5““ M rah, 2919; “ The foliowing order of the Ccurt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appeiiant Onkar Prasad Sahu is seekifug enhancement of the campensation awarded by the 15‘ Additienal Motor Accident C-Baims Tribunai, Ra‘zpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 04.07.2003 passed in Ciaim Case No.1 45 [2002. 2) As against toe compensation of Rs.32,0D,OOG/-, ciaimed by the appeiiant/claimant by fii’mg a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.02.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total Sum of f y Raipur<CG) Versus ’ Resooncient Sumesh Chandrakar, S/o Maniram, ‘Non—aooiicant Chandrakar, Hiotor Cyoie Briver é; ‘ 0wner, Rio Padkipaii, PS. Eaghbahara, \f ® Rs.5,00D/- as compensaticn along with interest @. 6% per annum from the date of Tiiing of the claim petition tin the gate of actual payment. 3) Shri SC. Verma and Shri Aditya Khare, learned counset for the appel!ant vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,00G/— only, though the appellant / claimantsustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW/i in support of his cialm. For the reasons best known to the appellant I 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 and the fg/fx that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certifiea‘te produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Eoctor who issued the certlhcate 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 ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reclaiy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 139, 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 l l l l 1g // the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed gross error in overlookinq the fact that Dr Sudhakar Redd'y‘s medicai certificate was rejected bv the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the ohysicai disabiiity at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deoosition of Dr KM Mitre and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hidh Court erred in disturbind the same and enhancind the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 6) The Apex Cour in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh t Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2093) ? SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the foiiowing 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‘t‘ne appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two veats 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 himeeif it was nnt admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculatedgn the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. lt 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 la been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as akso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the p'arties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity 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.” 7) in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar ,aiias Raiu V's Yudhuir Singh and another (supra). the medical certincates‘produced by the appeiiant/ciaimant before the Tribunai Without examining the Doctors 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, fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissedand is herebv dismissed. 1D) No order as to costs. i Sd/- i Chief JustiCe i i, subbu