IGH CGURT GF CHHATTI$G1£RH AT B£LA$PU BWiSlQN BENCH H R €Gm§fii HQN’BLE $HR§ RAJEEV GEPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI $UNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. MA N0.1$‘§2i2065 A'ixppewnt I Abhijii Kant Chaudhari, Sfo Anoop Kanf Ciiman‘t Chaudhari, aged about 28 years, Rio I Abhanpur District — Raipur (CG) ; ‘ . a ‘ VERsijs Resgondenis 1. Jeewan La! GQnd, S/o Shyamia! RJO Non-Appiicants Amapara, Riapur Dist Raipur (CG) i ‘ . é - , 2. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/o BV Gupta, > I HIG—19/C Mixeiianeous kngeai under Section W3 0f Moicr Vehiaies Act 1%8 Present : Shri SC Verma, learned counsei far the appei!ani. Qrder (18m June, 2mm The foilowing order of the Ccurt wasrk passed by i Rajeev Gama” CJ. Shri SC Verma, learned ceunse! fer the appeuant is heam 3 en admissicn. 2. Appellant/clement Abhijit Kant Chaudhari is seeking enhancement 0f the compensation awarded by the Ninth tAdditionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Raiput’ (for shcrt ‘the Tribunal’) vlde award dated 17.08.2005, passed in claim case No. 30/2004. _ 3. As against the compensation of Rs.20,.75,00D/— claimed by the appellant / claimant by iiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in , ‘ \ \ ‘ L ‘ the motea’ accident an 01.05.2003, the Tribuna! awarded a lump-sum of Rs.30,000/~ as compensation along with intere$€ @ 5% per annum\from the date of ming 0f the cEaEm petition tifl the date sf actuai payment. 4. Shri $C Verma; !eamed counse! for the appeuant veh emently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow comgpensation of Rs.30,GOO/: oniy, though the appeiiant I ciaimant sustained muitipte serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. 1 For the reasons best known to the appeiiant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunat to estabiisn the nature of the injuries said to have been sustat’red by the appelianti oiaimant an the motor acordent and the fact that those mjunes resuited in any permanent disabritty. 6. ‘ The question whether the medioa! certificate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor i «at; whcé) issued the certificate can be tetied upon as substantive i evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for i ooneideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupat Raddy, reported in (20G5) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing iearned counsei for the resoorident- i ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the i Hioh Court we find that there was no iustificatron for the t High Court to rely onrthe disahiiity certificate issued by ' Dr. Sudhakar Raddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in i overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical icertificate was yeiected by the Tribunai for nen- ‘examination of that doctor. The TribunaE has afetermmeah he nhvsioai disabmtv at 15 per cent on the basis of the idenositien ef Dr. KM. Mitra and awamied a iust and fair commensaticn. The HEgh Caurt‘ erred m disiuybing the Esame anci enhancing the compensation. Consequentty. we atiew this apnea], set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunei. The ‘respOhdent-ciaimant is allowed t9 withdraw the amount of Compensatien awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” . 7. 1 The Apex Cdurt in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kuniiar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 8g 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View With the fellowtng observations in para 1 1 : “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 hospitai treated the appetlant. iOn what basis, such a certificate was issued two years iafter the accident took piece is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissibte in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was catcuiated on the basis of the provisions ofthe ‘Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. ilt is also not known as to whether he was competent to §issue such a certificate,\ tt even does not appear that the icontentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court; The Tribunal as atso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the 1 materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of jany contention having been raised in regard to the {200 (WWW Mud-’— apblicability of the Wot’kmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opmion, ex fade has no appEication, the same, in. our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” ’ 8. in view of the above quoted dicta oi the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Roddy (Supra) and Rajeeh ’ Kama! aiias Raw v Yucihvar $mgh and anoiher (Supra) ihe i medicai certificates produced oy me appeiiant/oiaimant before the Tribunai Without examining the doctor, who had issued thoee Voertifipaies cannot be taken into'consideration for enhancement of the‘ compenoation in the Case. 9. We therefore do not ind any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Tribunai 10. The appeai filed by the appeiiant/ oiaimant for enhancement of the. compensation, therefore, is itabiejo he J dismi teed and is hereby diemisseo‘ summarily. Ax/’/ Sd/— / W s i CHIEF JUSTICE /3 “age a /’