HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HONSHLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc Aggl No.512 oi 2002 1 Smt Lasnati Wlo Shatrughan Sirdar Aged about 3O years Ku. Umeshwari Aged about 8 years Dlo Shatrughan Sirdar, Minor Through Her, Guardian Mother Lasnati W/o Shatrughan Both Rlo Village Aliwara Thana Gendatola Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Smt Chitra Dodke, Wlo Chandra Kant Dodke, Aged about 40 years, House No.45, Shakarwara Chowk, Nagpur. Tahsil and Distt Maharashtra 2 National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divl Manager AAkashganga Complex Supela Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) Miscellaneous Apgeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act. 1983 Present : Shri Anand Shukla, counsel forthe appellams. None for respondent No.1. Respondent ’ Non — Claimants Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.2. “l --—-— ORDER (17m November, 2099) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellants Smt Lasnati and Kumari Umeshwari are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional MotOr Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the /, Tribunal‘) vide award dated 28.01.2002 passed in Claim Case No.98l99. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.1.20,000/-, claimed by the appeilants/ciaimants by iiiing a ciaim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 28.1 2.1 998, the Tribunai awarded Rs.8,300/- each to both the ciaimants Smt Lasnati and Kumari Umeshwari as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.8.300/— awarded by the Tribunal to each of the two appellants Smt Lasnati and Kumari Umeshwari is too low as both the appellants/claimants sustained multiple serious iniuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal claimant No.1 Smt Lasnati examined herself as AW/t in support of their claim. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishingthe nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by them and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as 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 V 3a “6. After hearing Ieamed 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 disabiiity to be 45 percent. The High Cgurt committgd gross error in overlooking_the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsioai diaability at 15 per cento he asis of the iti of it and awarded a iust and fair compegign. The i Co er i itr' enhancing 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.” 6) 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 : “1 1. 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 Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : place is not known. The agthor of thg said certifncate had not been examined. Uniess the got agmjssigje in gvigenge. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othewvise 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.” 7) in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificates produced by the appellants/claimants before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. V / "” ,,_,’—es " 10) No order as to costs. padma Lxv, v; ) Sd/. Chief Justice FR l SdL “I: $§nil Kumar Sinha Judge