/?"\"^ 1 (^.-..-~l,. 1 '^s%j ^ '^ss.^y. "^&s^ ""3W^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH CORAIVi: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appeilants Respondents Misc Appeal (0 No. 1170 of2009 1 Rajesh Kumar, aged about 22 years 2 Smt Rajni Bai Sahu, aged about 21 years 3 Amit Kumar, aged about 18 years 4 Ku Sarojani, aged about 16 years 5 Mukesh Kumar, aged about 14 years 6 Dipesh Kumar, aged about 12 years All S/o Shivkumar Sahu, No.4 to 6 minors, through naturai guardian father Shiv Kumar Sahu All r/o Village Nevra,PS Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS 1 Ramkumar Lahre, s/o Dukhuram Lahre, aged about 45 years, r/o village Bharari, PS Kota, District Biiaspur (CG) 2 Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office - Near Bus Stand, Bilapsur (CG) Miscellaneous AppeaJ under Section 173 of IViotor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sautabh Sharma and Shri AL Singraul, counsel for respondent No.2. MACNo.1170 of 2009 ^^~ ORDER (04th August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is clajmants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 01.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 15/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,75,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by one Rambai Sahu in the motor accident on 14.03.2007, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. 4) Shri Saurabh Sharma and Shri AL Singraul, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Before the Tribunal the claimants examined AW/1 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and AW/2 Dhannuram Suryavanshi in support of their ^p MACNo.1170 of 2009 claim. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by claimant Rambai Sahu 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 certificate can be reiied uponas 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 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 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 High Court committed gross 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 phvsical disabilitv 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 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. ^ IVIAC No.1170 of 2009 The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat, 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 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 atso 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 Tribunai 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." MAC No.1170 of 2009 8) The medical certificates produced by the claimants 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) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), , cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) Though the claimants pleaded that the death of claimant Rambai Sahu after about three months of the motor accident was on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants failed in establishing any connection between the death of deceased Rambai Sahu in the train accident in the month of July, 2007 and the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident in the month of March, 2007. 10) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. —— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma