@ 9‘? \e9v99) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 770 of 2006 Appellant Ravikumar, ‘S/o Kanwal Cast-Gond, Claimant aged about 25 years, Occupation Agriculturist 8. Labour, R/o Village Lochan P.O. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah Kawardha - Distt Kabirdham (CG) VERSUS f?r Resgondents 1 Janak Ram Sahu S/o Bipatram Sahu Occupation — Transporting R/o Tikarapara Raipur at pxesent Address Koilari P.O. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah Kawardha Distt Kabirdham (CG) National Insurance Companyr Ltd T rough - Board Manager, Board Office kashganga Complex, Supela Bhilai Distt Durg (CG). Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri Ramnivas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. oRoER (01" September, zoos) The following order 0f the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant — Ravikumar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims ' Tribunal, Kawardha (for shod ‘the’ Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.25l2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,15,250/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.04.2005, the. Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.19,185/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum on the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days or the date ofthé award. . 4) Shri Ramnivas Pandey, leamed pounsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awat'ding low compehsation of Rs.19,185/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 5) The claimant, before the Tribunal, examined himself alone in support of his claim as AW-1. 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 inrthe motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. I 6) The question whether the medical certidcate 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. SRTC v. P. Thirupal f7; Reddy, reported inA(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 reiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation hy treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the ghysical disability at 15 gr cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comgensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing. the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, se 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.” 7) 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 : “1 1. 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 admlsslbie in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on l7“, t the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise 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 applicabiiity 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.” 8) In view of the above quoted dicta’of the Apex Court in the cases of A.Pf. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates,vcannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find an'y scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal tiled by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is l hereb dismissed summariyl Sd/- Sd/— ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice i, \} ‘ Judge subbu