^A HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DiyiSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant/ Claimant Respondents Owner IVIisc. Appeal (0 No. 81 of 2006 Moti Bai aged about 55 years W/o Door Ram R/o Ranigarh, P.S. & Tahsil Bilaigarh, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Bhagirathi, S/o Babulal Sahu R/o. Nagarda P.S.& Tahsil Bilaigarh, dist. RaipurC.G. 2. New India Insurance Company Office R.D.A. Building, Barang Bazar RaipurC.G. 3. Tejram, S/o Puranikram Sahu R/o. Sambalpur, P.S. Lalbag Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. 4. Gupta Cement Agency Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon Dist. Rajnandgaoh C.G. 5. National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office, Rajnandgaon, C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Mishra,counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondents No. 3 to 5. ORDER (23rd March, 2011) i,^ "^.. '^ .^./ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant - Moti Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.10.2005, passed in Claim CaseNo. 164/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, by filing 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.20,000/- ascompensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant" vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in awarding low compensation of Rs.20,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation, of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the fgcts and cjrcumstancesof the presentcase. © 5) Shri Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo also supported the award. 6) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was* examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) 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 assessmentof the compensationcame 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 inpara 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 hliah Court committed aross 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 determmed the phvsical disabilitvat 15per cent on the basisof the depositjon of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded aiust and fair compensatjon. The Hiah Courterred 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. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in thecase of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following4 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 orotherwise 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." ^<i 9) The medical certificates produced by the claimant 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma