HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 112 of 2007 APPELLANT Claimant Navin Kant Parihar aged about 33 years s/o Dr. R.S. Parihar, R/o Tikarapara through House of Gopal Prasad Bitaspur distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Non-applicants 3. Kulprit Singh S/o Jaswant Singh Sardar R/o Bhata Chowk 23, Bata Chowk Faridabad, distt. Faridabad Haryana (Vehicle Owner) Javed Khan S/o Safi Ulla Khan; R/o Village Banoura, Sonbhadra (U.P.) through Jaspur Transport Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Vehicte Driver) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Ratan Ganj Mirzapur (U.P.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFTHE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Indrasen Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for responderrt No.3. ORDER (21st August, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents ^•'"s"'^ s "'r S XS!S&, S ? -...^ J 3?"^ ® Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 136/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.27,02,000/- ctaimed by the appeilant/ claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,67,400/- ascompensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Indrasen Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensatlon of Rs.1,67,4007- awarded by the Tribunal is too low as the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractwes in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 10%. 4. Though the claimant examined as many as five (AW1 Naveen Kant, AW2 Hemant, AW3 Yogendra Pal, AW4 Bhastair and AW5 Rajeev) in support of his ctaim before the Tribunat, for the reasons best known to him, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the Injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5. The question whether the medical certlfirate 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. ^RTC_vs High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materlals 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 Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunaKumarSinha Judge nimmi r