HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Cl No. 313/2010 APPELLANT APPLICANT RESPONDENTS 1 Thakur Ram aged about 52 years, Son of late Sukalu Ram Satnami, Resident of Village Bade Urla Tah. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur CG Versus Jay Koshore alias Vikki Sahu, aged 25 years, son of Thakur Ram Sahu, Resident of Village Kopra Rajim Tahsil Rajim Distt. Raipur preseht address: Pachpedi Naka, Dharam Nagar, Tah. and Distt. Raipur Smt. Saroj Sharma W/o Sumit Flat No. A-9, Deepak Apartment, Kankalipara, Raipur CG Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, G.E. Road Plaza, Airport Road, Pune 411 006 Divisional Manager, SRY G.E. Road, Raipur CG SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J J., PRESENT :-Shri B.K. Chakrabarty, Advocate, for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (28-4-2010) Heard on admission. 2. Appellant/ claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 13-1-2009 passed in Claim Case No. 79/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 6-11-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,557/- as compensation. 4. Shri Chakrabatry, learned counsel for the appellanf vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,557/- only for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, whereas ^ ^ ' "I ^,.>^^ :<~''!^,.^^r^^ ^ the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. 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 those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. The question whether the medical certificate 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 Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : a6. 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 rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking 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 disabilifrvr at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and farecompensation. 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." 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 obseryations in para 11 : " 11. 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 °% ^ ^iS 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 sanie, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.?? 8. In the instant case, it is not proved as to how many days the appellant remained in hospital. It is also not proved as to how much amount he spent in treatment except Ex. P- 10 which is a medical bill amounting to Rs. 57.20/- and, therefore, 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. 1,557/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. 9. 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 certificate 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. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge