^ L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. JVIisc. Appeal No. 186 of 2008 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Vishai Ram, S/o Tulsiram Verma, Age about 40 years, R/o Gram Chaveli; Post Khapri, Thana Dhumka, Tehsil & Rajnandgaon (C.G.). DEstt. RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Versus 1. Meghnath, S/o Dharmraj Verma, Age about 24 years, R/o Gram- Theika-Dihi , Tahsii-Khairagarh & Dlstt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) DRiVER. 2. Rajesh Kumar, S.o Ramhu Lodhi, R/o Gram Sirsadl, Post- Gatapaerkata, Tehsil Khalragarh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) OWNER 3. The Orientai Insurance Company, Through its Branch Manager, Kamathi-tine, Distt. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) iNSURER APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 173 OF THE MOTORVEHSCLEACT Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsei for the appeilant. O RD E R (15Ih JuSy, 2099) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Appellant Vishal Ram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident ^w^,,^ Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 28.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 125/2003. 2. As agajnst the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- ciaimed by the appeiiant/ ciaimant by fi!ing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.07.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,405/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition till the date of actua! payment. 3. Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.25,405/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained muitipie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident. 4. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appelianV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiiity. 5. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunai without examlning the Doctor who issued the certificate can be refied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratioR before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent-ciaimant who made an atfempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensafion by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court commltted aross error in overiookjna the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlficate vv-as relected bv the Tribuna! for non-examlnation of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsjcal dlsabi!itv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensatlon. The Hiah Court erred in disturb'ina the same and enhancina the compensatlon. Consequently, we at!ow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent- ciaimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 6. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar allas Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported In (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. St 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 knovi/n. The author of the said certjficate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certlflcate examined himseif. It was not admisslble in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was catoulated on the basls of the provisjons of the Workmen's Compensatlon 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 thaf the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having- been raised In regard to the app!icabi!ity of ^:::^^ .A. ' /;. '^'^ /'':{...^^, j. /' /;/ ^ •':•>—'^,A ^^^' 4 ^ the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our oplnion, ex fade has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7. !n view of the above quoted di'cta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certlficates produced by the appellanV ciaimant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctor/Doctors who had issued those certificates, 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 compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeai, therefore, is iiable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. ——- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu