^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appea! (C) No. 195 of 2009 ApDeltant : Prakash Ekka, S/o Dewar Ekka, Caste-Uraon, aged about 43 years, occupation Meson & Agriculture, R/o village-Kunkuri, Post Kiikila, Tahsi! Pathalgaon, district Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents 1 Mohammad Faizal Haque, S/o Mohd. Abdul Haque, Proprietor M/s Rajdhani Transport, Kharsiya Naka Ambikapur, district Sarguja (C.G.) (Owner) 2 Surjit Singh, S/o Shri Mohinder Singh, occupation Driver, R/o Village Kartama, P.S. Jainagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Driver) 3 The Orientat Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office Raigarh, (C.G.) (Insurer) {MisceSSaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988) Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, Jearned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (16tnJuly,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^.^^^^ Appeilant - Prakash Ekkais seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27-11-2008, passed in Clajm Case No.36/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,25,813/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28-03-2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.94,067/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 3) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appeltant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.94,067/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includjng fractures in the motor accident resulting jn permanent disability to the extent of 55%. 4) From para 7 of the impugned award we gather that the claimantexamined only two witnesses including himself nannrely AW/1 Prakash Ekka and AW/2 Anthros Ekka in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, 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 accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. :^.-.A'"'^:'~ " 9^~1 1 \-^'^y 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certjficate 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 v. 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 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposjtion of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and 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 v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following ^observations in para 11 : '::®8S^:';-, ^ ^ ^v/ '^., "^•"""^ ^'' -^•.,^^^' "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 ptace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examjned, 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. !t 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 d'fcta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certjficate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of th^compensation awarded by the Tribunal. r '% f &.. 'Bs h. '^1% /V 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summanly^ Sd/'- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge h-N-"^ 11^