HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR DSVSSION BENCK CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HOM'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J ADpeSiant Respondents ^^-.—-.^.,^—-.-»-—..-.«»»..«.-.^-.». M^Klo.1443of2009 Teekoo @ Teekendra S/o Dinesh Yadav aged about 09 years, msnor guardian Dinesh Yadav, S/o Shri Bali Ram Yadav, aged about 45 years R/o Ghoahara, Tahsil & PS - Nawagarh, Distt Durg (CG) Versus 1 Dilharan Sahu, S/o Shri Genda Ram aged about 19 years, Occupation ~ Driver, R/o village Ghoghara, Tahsll & PS - Nav/agarh Disft Durg (CG) 2 Mansha Ram, S/o Shri Titra Baiga, aged about 50 years, R/o viliage Badaora, PS Pandariya Tahsil & Dlstt Kawardha (Kabirdham) 3 The Branch Manager, The New Indla fnsurance Company Limited, Divissonal Office : Biiaspur, Distt Bilaspur (CG) Misc Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act Present : Shri Sudhir Verma, counsei for the appellant. ORDER (18tnJanusr/,2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admisslon. 2) The appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Distt Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2009 passed in Claim Case No.12/2009. ^f^^.^ @ 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by fillng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in th@ motor accident on 18.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,218/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tnbunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.62,218/- only, though the appellant/daimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures In the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) Though before the Tribunai as many as two witnesses have been examined by the claimant in support of his claim petitlon, 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 bythe appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who Jssued the certiflcate can be relied upon as substantlve evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. TMrupal Reddy reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: ^) "6. After hearing learned oounsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the dlsability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court commltted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM IVIItra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is altowed 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 Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observatlons in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civii 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. Theauthor of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabJlity 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 certlficate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. Tte Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. En 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 appllcation, 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 th@ cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medicai certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal, filed by the appellant/clalmant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma