IN TH E‘IHIH G COURT O F JUDIAAT' CTURE BI‘LA’$PUR HHATTISGAR wlslon enc (01" /2oos N = Sanma ‘i Bai ’CAIMANT e aout 45 year‘ I d/o. Late Kanhaiya Sah o. Suiuru P l R/ tkli, .S. & Tahsi ilagar‘h istt ir C.G. Bi, D. Rapu () EU : R Nd PS Thu /o agara & as BHgh D p (G) aIar, ‘Ist. Ralur C.. / Office R D A Bulldlng, Barang a ) Bazar Rlpur (C.G. Tejram,‘ S/o Puranikram Sahu / Sblp’u, S lbg Ro. amar P.’. Laa Dt Rjng CG) is. saandaon (.. 4 , ‘. j Chk, Rgn Gan ow ajnandao Di Rajndg (G) st. anaaon C.. aona nsurance Oman 'Ltd‘ Ntil I Cpy . Branch Office, Rajnandgaon t Baurau S/o Baual a hgth, bl Shu SPONDENTS OWE NR N In Insuance Company ew r . ‘ ‘ wV CH D Bh APPELLAT / G Agd b s W ( u VRSS 1 % V ‘33 Gupta- Cement, Agency /5 . IGH COURT GF CHHATTISG RH AT BILASPU i DIVISION BENCH i CGRAM HON’ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J LION’BLE SLIRI RANGNA'I'H CHANDRAKAR,J l MA. (CI No. 102 of 2006 I Miscetianecus Appeal uls173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : ShriA.C. Sahu,counse!forthe appellant. None for the respondents. ORBER (19m Marcm 261a) H R Apneilant SanmatiBai , Claimant Aged ,abcutL *45 years, Wd/o. Late Kanhéiya Sahu, R/o Sutiurkuii, Ps. & Tahsi: gllaégar’h, Bisa: Raépar (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Bhaglrathl Slo Babular Sahu Owner Rio Nagarda P ° 8: Tahsll Bilaxgarh District Ralpur (C G ) 2 New India Insurance Company OfFce RDA Bu;tdmg Barangl BaLar Ralpur(CG) 3 Tejram, S/o. Puranikram Sahu R/o. Sambatpur, P.S. Latbag Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Gupta CementAgency Gan} Chcwk, Rajnandgaon Dtst. Rajnandgaon. 5. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 r 35W Court was passed by' The following Order of the Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appenant’ Sanmati Bai is seeking enhariceme’nt of the compensation awarded by the Second‘ Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Dist.- RaipurUor short ‘the Tribunai‘) vide award dated 29.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.166/2004. 2) As against the compensation ofi Rs.4,60,000l-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 24.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @79% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) ShriA.C.Sahu,learnedcounselforthe appellantvehemently ' argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only, though the appellant / claimant sustained multiple seriousinjuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Before the’Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses (AW/1 Sanmati Bai and AW/2 Bharat Lal)«in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant I ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature- of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor ascident and the fact thabthose injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 13 , l ‘ / 5) The question whether the medica1l certificate producedby the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can, be reiied upbn as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatioh came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of EA.P.SRTC- Vs P. Thirupa a reort ir (25 1 scc 9 wherei it od in I ara 6 as unde p ' r: i i _ Afte rg ei. ouse t rnt clit h ae an aempt supot e order f t Hh out we iind pr th o he ig Cr, ‘ that thee ws o usficati fr th gh Cou o rey r a n jtion o e Hi rt t l iali fcat ie uaa' on the dsbity certiie ssud by Dr Sdhkr i e n h n ting h a nt aili b 4 e. ns, e ll i e t uge orde a t o lai il. Th en-ciint s idw the amout of compon ade h iuna if it ha not aready ben wdw; w . Rddy and ehance te compesation by trea te injury s permane disbty to e 5 prcent The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy‘s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal fOr non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physicalidisability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra j and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the'compensation. Coequently w «aow ths appal, set aside he impnd r nd restore he award f the Cms Trbuna e rspondetama i allowed to wthra \ n ensati awrd by te Trbl, s l e ithran” 6) he Ax Curt in a‘recent ictum in e asebf Rajesh ' T pe o d th c' “ \ Kuma alias Raju Vs Yuhvir Singh ad anotr poed in r d n he, rert l Redy ped t 00) 2 18§ n Was bserve x “6. r heain learnif cnl for he esponde — aman wo md tt to 4 t (2008) 7 SCC 305 reiterated the sa+ne vuew With the foilowmg observations In para 11 % i “'11 The certificate m question In th!s case was obtained after two years it is not known as to whether the CM! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant On what baSIs such a cerhficatezwas issued two years after the accident took place is not known The author of the said certmcate had not been examined Untess the author of the certrf‘cate examined hrmsetf, It was not admISSIbIe tn evrdence Whether the disabmty at 60% was calcutated on the basrs of the prowsmns of the orkmen’s Compensation Act ‘gor otherwise is not known. it is aiso not knovim 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 Tribunai as also the High Court therefore proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties in absence of any contention havmg been raisedin regard to the applicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which in our opinion exVfacie has no application the same in our opinion cannot be permitted to be raised for the First time " 7) in view of the above quoted dicta of the 'Apex court in the I cases of A.P.SRTC.Vs P. Thirupai Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh rand another (supra). the medical 7 certificate and the disability certificate produced by the_ appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, without. examining the Doctors who hadissued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in'the case. W 8) We. therefore. \do not fmd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal? 9) The appeali filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, thereforeL is liaple to be dismissed and is L hereby dismissed. r ' i i t 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/— V l Rangnath Chandrakar ChiefJustice - a Judge 'i subbu \