<,^ v^ ^- HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSiQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV QUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! SUNiL KUMAR SIMHA, J. Appellant Ciaimant Respondents •i-appiioants Mi'^.i^ i^vi i Misc. Appeal No. 223 of 2006 Ravl Sarkar, S/'o. Shri Ekanf Sarkar, Aged about 38 yrs. Occupation Eiectrician, R/o Birgaon, indra Nagar, Shukrawari Bazaar, WardNo.11,Raipur, District Raipur. VERSUS j' 1 Ravi Prakash Hemani, s/o Sewa Ram i-1emani Occupation - Driver, 2 Viiay Kumar Hemani S/o Sev/a Ram Hemani Occupation - Car Owner Both R/o Through: V.K. Pollymar, Telibandha, V.i.P. Chowk Tuming, Tah.S DistrictRalpur. 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional manager, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur. Apoeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, leamed counsel for the appe.'iant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent ).3. ORDER (18th Juiy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by l. CJ. ^- Appetlant/ ciatmant Ravi Sarkar is seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Addltional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 09.12.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No. 18/2005. 2) As agalnst the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injurles sustalned by hlm In the motor accident on 06.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.10,OQO/- as compensatlon along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tillAhe date of actual payment. 3) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, leamed counset for the appellant vehementty argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only, though the appellant/ciaimant sustained muttipte serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The National Insurance Company Limlted, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the appellant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resuited • in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Trlbunal is just and proper compensation In the facts and clrcumstances of the case. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellanb'claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establlsh the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant 3 ^- in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certlficate 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 Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189; wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearina learned courfsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation for the Hlgh 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 percent. The Hlqh Court commltted gross error In overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlficate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilltv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturblna the same and enhancinq the compensatlon. Consequently, we allow 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." \'^ 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported In (2008) 7 SCC 305, relterated the same vlew with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certiflcate in question in thls case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined: Unless the author of the certlflcate 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 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 aiso the t-ligh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appllcability 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) In vlew of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal 'FBE ^ys^ ^?^ ~IB without examining the Doctors who had Issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhanceraent of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunUKumarSinha ': Judge nlmmi