^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSION BENCH Ss CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS N.K. AGARWAL, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (Cl No.1404/2008 ADpeSiant Narad Chandravanshi S/o Shri Chatur Claimant Chandravanshi, aged about 27 yesrs R/o Viiiage - Akhra, PS Kunda, Tahsii Pandariya Distt KaVtf'ardha (CG) Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS 1 Chandan Slngh S/o Shri Badan Singh Thakur aged about 37 years, occupation - Driver r/o Ward No.1, Block Road Takhatpur Dlstt BISaspur (CG) 2 Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Agrav/aE, R/o Janakpur Road, Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur 3 New India Insurance Company Limited, in front of Rajeev Piaza, Bus Stand BJIaspur AppeaS under Section 173 of the Motor VehicSe Act, 1988 Present: Shri M'K Sinha; counsel for the appeilant. ORDER ^th (1SIn September, 20Q9) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri MK Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appeliant Narad Chandravanshi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accldent 2 ^ Claims Tribunai, Mungeli, distt Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.07.2008 passed in Claim Case No.04/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,70,000/-, claimed by the appeljant / claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.09.2007; the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.15.000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of fliing of the ciaim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 4) Shri MK Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred jn awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only, though the appellanVclaimant sustained muitiple serious injuries includjng fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses (AW/1 Narad Chandravanshi, AW/2 Narendra) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/cla'imant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appelSanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the clalmant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be rel'ied upon as substantive evidence forthe assessment ofthe compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. ThirupaS ^^.^^..^....:..^;. 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 High Court to rejy on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 percent. The High Court committed qross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comDensation. Consequently, we aliow 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 Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question Sn this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. 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 otherwise is not known. It is aiso 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 also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contentlon 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." 8) In view 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 medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find anyscope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. ^ 10) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu