> HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSQARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCN CORAM HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANimAKAR J. Misc. Apoeal No. 1874 of 2004 ADpellant : Smt Jhumka bai, W/o Sri Burajtal Applicant Markhandey, Unemployed, %ed iibout 33 yeare, R/o Village Vidhya Nagar, Ward No.1, Bemetara, District Durg Versus Resoondents Non-appllcants ^- 1. Phaguram Sahu, S/o Bhagvatj Sahu, aged obo\A 24 yeare, Occupation Driver. 2. Mukeshdhar Dhwan, S/o Vyascthar Diwan, aged about 30 years, Owner of the vehtele. Both R/o Nayapara, Wapd No.8, Bemetara, Thana & Tahsil bemetara, District Durg (CG) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co Ud., Duig Miscellaneous appeal under Sectton 173 ofthe MotorVehictesAct Present: ^hri Sar^ay S. Agrawal and thri Utteireh jQshi, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Verma, leamed (^unsel for respondents N0.1&2. None for respondent No.3 though served. ORDER (25thAugust,2010) The followtng order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, CJ. •">^ '^' -4 Appellant Smt. Jhumka Bai is seelang enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg ^or short the Tribunal') vide award dated 22-07-2004, passed in Claim Case No.01/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- ctaimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehteles Act for the mjuries sustained t>y her in the motor accident on 18-09-2003, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.37,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 9% per annum from the d?te of filing of the claim p^itton tiU the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal and Shri UtKarsh Joshi, tearned counsel for the appellant submitted iat the Tribynal has erred io awarding low compensation of Rs.37,000/- onfy, though th& appetlant/ claimant sustained multiple serious Snjurles tncluding ' fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent cNsabtlity. 4) Before the Tribunal, the elaimant examlned as many as three witnesses including hersetf (AW1 Smt. Jhymka Bai, AW2 Lakhan Lal and AW3 Suraj Lal) in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the appeUant/daimant, no doctor was*- examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeltant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resutted in any permanent disability. } ""•^. ^ 5) The questton whether the medicat certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certitlcate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatton came up fw consideratiwi before theApex Court In the case of A.P. SRTC.v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing ieamed counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Htgh Court, we find that there was no justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the disaNlity oertificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent dtsaNtty to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's mediGal certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has d^ermined the Dhvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comoensation. The Hiah Court erred 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-daimant is allowed to wi »drawthe amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum In ttie ease of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh amt another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view wtth the following observations in para 11 : .,^T'^. I i '^^^i i ^ ^. "^z^" ^ "11. The certfflcate in questlon In this <ase wa® obtainect after two yeare. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, suoh a certifiGate 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 certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabjltty at 60% was calcutated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is nol known. It is also not known as to whether he was competerrt to jssue 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 Tribunat as also the Htgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiate brought on record by the parttes. In absence of any contention having been rai^d 4n regard to the appljcabitity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our oplnion, ex facie has no applteatjon, ttie same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for ttie fir^ time." 7) In view of the above quoted dwta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC-v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesti Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certlficates produced by the claimant before ftie Tribynal withoutexamjnSng the Ooctors who had issued those certifteates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of ttie compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. f^. ";% r't...':' X I 1 ^ •/ '%^y '^^^3 ^t^ubbu ^ ^ ^ 9) The appeal filed by the aj^ellant/elajraant fbr enhancement of the compensatton, therefore, is liable to be ctismissed and is ^ ^^: hereby dismissed. 10) Jiloorderas to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge T