HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIsiON BENGH ‘ .~‘v M CORAM HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ HON’BLE SHRI PRAsHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. ; ,, Misc. Appeal No. 640 of 2005 Appellantl Blsnath Kshtn agad about 22 years :‘'Iaiman't ic “g s/o Nago Kshatri resident of‘ ‘ " ’Bhamsthnn In front 7 of Jaika Automobiles Ps Azad Chauk Ralpur (CG) ~ VERSUS Subudth Pandey, Slo Vinayak ‘ Pandey, agad about 39 years § ; ~ kespondentsi 1 f‘Non-appllcants v-resident of Rohlmpuram district :Raipur(CG) 2 Smt Shatabdu Pandey, W/o Subodh Pandey, resident of 216 Lokmanya Samlti Rohimpuram district Raipur (CG) 3 The Onental Insuranoe Co ud through ' Dwistonal Managar Diwswnal Gifce Kachahri Chaukl - Jan Road Ralpur (C G) Apgal Undef Section 173 {2l of the Motot Ve&levA‘ct,1988. Present: x Shn Kunal Das counsel on behalf. of Shn SC ';' Vanna counsel for the appellant Shn D L Dewangan counsel for respondem No 3 w; ORDER : V (17” August, 201$) The following order of the Coult was passed ,by ~ Rajeev Gupta, c.J. > Appellant — Bisnath Kshtri is seeking enhancement of the rrrciompensationlr ewarded by Eleventh Additional Motot _Aooident > ‘ H ‘ * } ' V Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for shod ‘the Tribunai') Vida award dated - ‘ 27.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No.7812004. s _ 2). As against the compensation of Rs.6,25,000l- ciaimed by a the appeiiant/eiaimant ‘by flling aclaim petition under Section 16; .‘z )2 of the Motor Vehieles Act forthe injuries sustained by him in-the » ‘motor accident on 09.05.2002,;the Tribunai awarded a ma! sum , - of Rs.7§,009l7 as compensation aiongwith intereg Q 6% per 3 annum from the date oi fiiingxof the oiaim petition’tiii the date of. r actfrai payment. r 3).:3h “teamed couns'eifor the appelint vehementlyargued [that > the Tribunai has erred in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.7{,m0/- only though the appellantlclaimant sustained muttiple" .5 . serious injuries including fractures in the-motor accident resulting» a in permanent disability. 4) » gBefore theTribunali the claimant examined two witnesses u including himself (AW-1 Bisnath Kshtri and AW2'Jagat Ram) in . Es‘upport of his claim. For the reasons best known to the .v appellantl‘ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained rt : by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that ‘ those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. f5) y Thequestion whether the medical ceititioate produued by rthe claimant before the Tribunal without examiningthe Doctor I who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive 7 evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRT¢ vu.’ 9 i P. Thirupal Reddy. reported in (2005) 12 SOC 189, wherein it - was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing Ieamed counsel for the respondenk claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court we fnd that there was no justifcation for the High Coutt to rely on the disability certmcate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per- z scent. The High Court committg gross error i verlookigg the fact that Dr Sudhakar Redd£§ medtca u certifcate was rejected by the Tribunat for non- ’ examination of that doctor The Tnbunal has determmed >- the h ical disabil at 15 rcent on the ofihev? dggo_sition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a lust and fa mensation The High Court erred in disturbing th , same and enhancing the compensation Consequently, v we allow this appeal set aside the impugned order andw » restore the award of the Claims Tribunal The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tnbunal If it has not already been Withdrawn € A The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the ‘case of Rajesh »- Kumar alias Raiu v YudhVir Singh and another reported in 1(2008) 7 SCC 3i)5, reiteratedsthe same View with the following observations in para 11 : i “1 1 The oettiflcate in question in this case was obtained after two years it is not known as to whether the CiVil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. 0n what basis, such a certmcate was issued iiwo years after the accident took place is not known. The author of .6) I obill author 9f the mttifwte gxgminw h§m§§lf. it wag mt ‘ admissible m ewdenoe Whether the disabillty $6093 1 was calculated on the basis of me prowsions of tha Workman s Compensation Act or othervwse Is not known it Is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a oertmcate It even does not appear that the contentions ratsed before us had either been reused "before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties tn absence of "any contention havrng been rarsed In regard to the applicability of the Workmens Compensation Act which :In our opinion ex facle has no applicatlon, the same in ~ v --our opinion cannot be pennltted to be raised for the first time 7) v In View of the above quoted dicta of the. Apex C‘ourttn the oases of A'.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) am Rajesh - Kumar' alias Raju v. Yudhvir singh and enother (Supra),‘the 3 medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant beforethe “Tribunal without examining. the Doctor who hed issuw‘ those - certificates; cannot be taken into consideratioqjfor enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) . I We, therefore, do not tind any scope for enhancement oi the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The-appeal filedbythe appeilant/claimant for enhancement ‘ of'the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed 10) No order as to costs. 7K Chief Justice“ i Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge W ‘ 493W Sdl- Sd/- . -