® E AT BILASPUR, C.G. M.A.No. ‘g"?2 £2002 dmf IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC&TUR APPEELEN$ CLAIM‘ T Rarnchandra , s/a Sudama , caste Kei aged abaut 31 years. accupatiem griculture, R/$ Village Khari, kl»,O thana Patana, Tahsil Baikunthpur, t ; ' w’4' * Dist.: Karea (CG) . VER$US d REsp’ormENTs ‘N'o"N' 3W?LI‘cmq-T Natiaaal Insurance Ca. Ltd. thraugh Branch Manager, Natisaal Iasurance C@.Ltd.. K®rba PO.K@rba, Digtd Karba (cG) » Ramlai Jaiswal,>' S/¢ Mahadev Prasad Jaisswal. aged abeut 40 yearagg Patama, Tah sil Bsi kunthpur. 1‘ Dist.:' Karea (CG) § R: l) Xv INSURERR R/@ Villager Chhiiéadia, thana 8€\P@st OWNER 3) $antlai $/a Bhudhuram, aged about 28 years, @ccupatian Driver, R/a Tahsil village Baikunt‘npur, B'elrdia; thama’iSr’Pahst Digt; a Kare.&(CG Patawa “v‘ )w, ‘ ‘ ‘ DRIVER ‘ AFPEAJA UNDER SECWION 173 03‘ MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR K J W ENE-MCEMENI‘ OF THE HVIOUNT OF Am L.»m.w.»W‘.i,‘ 7-..“ .u m .M.“ g r W \" ‘éc l Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 39312002 ABPELLANT ’ :- fiion. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PREaENT Shri Atnu Ghosh, Advocate, for the appellant. ‘V‘ N7K. Agarwal, J Heard on admission. Appellant/ . claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation (awarded by the VITH Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Surajpur (for shoxt “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 314.2002 passed in M.A.C.C. No. 12/2001. As against the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by ming a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injmies sustained by him in the motor accident on 25-3—99, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of "Rs.'_\ 3,000/- as compensation. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 10w compensation of Rs.3,000/— only, Whereas 1 the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries ‘ in the motor accident. For the reasons best known 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 1 those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. Ramchandra Versus National Insurance Co Ltd. and others ORAL ORDER (8—3-20 10) r / SB Per The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal Without examining the l Doctor who issued the certmcate can be relied upon as 1 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. Thlruliél Raddy, 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 mid that there was no justiiication for the High Court to rely E on the disability certincate issued by Dr. Sudhakar i ‘Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the " V’ injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent The High Court committed gross error in overlooking‘the l fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddyfs medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of ‘ that dogor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and l fair compensation. The ’High Court erred in disturbing 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. " The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh, Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvh' Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observau‘ons in para 1 1 : " 11. The certificate in question mthis 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 oertiiicate 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 certincate 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. It is also not Imown as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before Us had eithe been raised before the Tribunal or'the r In the instant case, it is not proved as to how many days the appellant remained in hospital. It is also not proved as I to how much amount he spent in treatment and,‘ therefore, v considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the » doctor has not been examined to prove the injury and certificates, an amount of Rs 3 000/- Vhas been awarded as compensation to the claimant. In View of the above quoted dwta of the Apex Court 1n the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir 5in@ and another (Supra), the certiiicate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case._ For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The 10.? appeal” filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12.‘ Sd/' N. K. Agarwain‘,\F Judge »;a Hlgh Court The ’I‘nbunal as also the Hlgh Court therefore, proceeded on the materlals brought on X record by the parues In absence of any contentlon having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmens Compensatlon Act whlch 1n our opmlon, ex fac1e has no apphcauon, the same, our opnnon, cannot be permttted to be reused for the first time No order as to costs.