.4 *-<; -^ •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Claimant rnftc- Misc. Appeal (C) (PR) No. 3342 of 2011 Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal, aged about 62 years, s/o late Sri LL Jaiswal, R/o Lalu Ram Colony, Korba, Tahsil & Distt Korba (CG) Resppndents VERSUS Bhushan Singh Gond, §/oLate Sri Ram Singh Gond, aged aboyt 48 years, r/o Sector - 05, Qtr No.A/376, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & Distt - Korba (CG) Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Korba Tahsil & Distt Korba (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (07th December, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2)^ Appellant Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short, 'the Tribunal')vide award dated 12.09.2011, passed in Claim Case No. 150/2011. isKssses^sss-i M.A.C. (PR) No.3342 of 2011 p}f)c \'2.i{e))) 3) As against compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.12.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 92,561/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.92,561/- only, though the appellant / claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includingfractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) From para 12 of the impugned award, we gather that the claimant did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident 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 certifieate can be relied upon as substantive evidence forthe assessment ofthe compensation came up forconsideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attemptto M.A.C. (PR) No.3342 of 2011 {DV^L i^e/lf 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 the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed oross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on theJiasis^oLthecleposition of DJ' KMJVIilra and awarded a iust and fair compensatjon. The High Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. 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 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 in this 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 certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificatejiad jioLbeerLexamined. JJnjess Jhe aythor^f_the^certificate^xamined jTimself, jtwas not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the s« ^^ '^ '«», •^'iai^ M.A.C.(PR)No.3342of2011 fr]f)<L W/l] 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 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 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) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court, in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh (supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope 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/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu