HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants ••i!-^!i^sg.5 Misc. Appeal No. 443 of 2004 Brijesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Babulal Yadav, Aged about 23 years, R/o Rautpara Near Anupama Talkies, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) VERSUS 1 Mohammad Shamim, S/o Sumsuddin, aged about 24 years, R/o Tikrapara Bilaspur through Rajdhani Travels, New Bus Stand, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur 2 Mohammad Hasan Khan, S/o Al! Mohammad Khan, R/o Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur 4. Vitas Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Sarangdhar Dubey, aged about 33 years, R/o Routpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present / Shri Vikas Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (29m January, 2010) The .following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. \' ;;)®s;.^-f^ .-fi.~'ia Appellant - Brijesh Kumar Yadav is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by First Additional Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 27.12.2003, passed in Claim Case No.93/2002. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.11,22,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.01.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multipte serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW-1 in support of his claim. 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 in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resutted 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 certificate can be relied upon as substantive ^--'\ -\ r" ..,!««S 1.1tff lai ;i|B'i!ilir " 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: "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 rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabitity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error jn overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's^medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination orthat doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbinq the same and enhancinq the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow 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." 6) TheApex Courtin 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 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. F- »/ 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.Jt wasnot 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 firet 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 certificates produced bythe appellant/claimant beforethe Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement / ofthe compensation in the case. 8) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. allll'' 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to coSts. 8d/- Chief Justice Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu v"s- '1'B:.