1 ^ -.^<sS """/'/ '.a. -i ;il.«i!;e;siatSi»1 CIaimanS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHR1 SUN1L KUMAR SSNHA. J. MJSC. Appeal No. 1085 of 2003 Ku. Meenakshi Sahu, aged about 15 yrs, D/o Dharam Singh Sahu, through fegal guardian father, Dharam Singh Sahu, S/o Mahettar Sabu, R/o. Vitlage Bangoli, Tah & Dist: Raipur (C.G.) Non-appiicant ;?•"''^-S5 :r;?^i3:aiis Versus 1. Paras Ram, aged 36 yrs, S/o Bisaru, R/o. Village Saragaon, P.S. Kharora, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Harmeet Singh, aged , S/o. GurmuKh Slngh Hora, R/o. Hora Transport and Company, Fafadlh, Raipur, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The United tnsurance Company Limited, through the Divisiona! Manager, Tara Complex, near Ashish Hofei, G.E. Road, power house Bhilai, dist. Durg (C.G.) Memo of appeal under Sectron 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri UtRarsh Joshi, ieamed counsel for respondent N0.3. ORDER (27th August, 2019) The foflowing order of the Court was passed by t3g U.JIa Appetlaftt - Ku Meenakshi Sahu is seeking entiancement of the comDensation awarded bv the Third Additional Motor Accident I i]ii:';B?;;:!NM| Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08-09-2003, passed in Claim Case No.115/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- claimed by the appeltant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries susteined by her in the motor accident on 02-07-2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition till the date of actuai pavment. 3) Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.12,000/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained muttiple serious Injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabitity. 4) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses including hersetf (AW/1 Ku. Meenakshi Sahu and AW/2 Ravi Kanth Verma) in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabtish the nature of the injuries said to twve been sustained by the appeUant/clalmant in the motor accident and the fact that those jnjuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certtficate can be retied upon as substantive evidence for the assessrn<?nt of the compensation came up for consideration B;lli 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 in para 6 as under: •9 "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 justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the disabtlity certifieate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed sross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition ofDr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensatlon. The t-fiah Couri: erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order ancl restore the award of the Claims Tribunat. The respondent-ctaimant Is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6) 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 : "11. The certificate in questton in this case was obtafned after two yeare. tt is not known as to whether ttie Civit Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetlant. On what basisi'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 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 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certiflcates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certiflcates, 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 by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal fried by the appeltant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. order as to costs. _—--'-~ ~~ 3d/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief Justice SU133U