A--P.R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT DiVISiON HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARIVSA, J. Nlsceiianeous Appeal (0 No.831 of (Ciaimant) (Non-clasrriants) Vipin Bihari Das S/o Shri IVIarkand Das, aged about 69 years, Occupation Member of School Management, R/o M.R. Colony, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Narendra Kumar @ Bajrang Agrawal S/o Shri Gigraj Agrawaf, aged about 27 years, R/o Basana, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of vehicie Motorcycie bearing registratlon No.CG-06/C-0766) 2 Glgraj Agrawai, Occupation Business Man, R/o P.P. Road, Basana, Tehsll Basana, Saraipaii, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner of yehicle Motorcycie bearing registration No.CG-06/C-0766) 3 The OrientaE Ensurance Company Limited, Through Divisionat Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of vehlcie Motorcycle bearing reglstration No.CG-06/C-0766) (Appea! under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) h'ssent: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawai & Shri P. Dutta, counse! for respondent No.3. ^ ORDER (07tn October, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta, CJ. Appellant Vipin Bihari Das is seeking enhancement of the compeRsation awarded by the Uth Additiona! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the Jribunai') vide award .dated 27.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 14/2007. 2. As against the compensatlon of Rs.3,65,000/- claimed by appeSlant/claimant Vipin Bihari Das, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the IViotor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accldent on 21.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.61,812/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiEing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actuai payment. 3. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counseS for the appeilant, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding iow compensation of Rs.61,812/- oniy though the appellant/daimant sustained muitiple serious injuries Including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabiSity. 4. Shrl Sudhlr Agrawa! & Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel respondent No.3 - The Oriental tnsurance Company Ltd. on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the appellant could not estabiish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.61,812/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and s^'^^^^^s^^^^s's^^:^ ^^^ ^^ ^ "^^^ "'^i^-^^'"^ !i^ proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Before the Tribunai, the daimant examined two witnesses inciuding himseif (AW-1 Vipln Bihari Das and AW-2 Atmanand Sahu) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appeliant/claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to estabiish the nature of the Injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 6. The questlon whether the medica! certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who Issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantlve evidence for the assessment of the compensatlon came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P, Thlrupal Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Hsgh Court, we f'nd that there was no justlfication 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 disabillty to be 45 per cent. The Hlah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medica! certificate was _rejected bv the Tribuna! for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsicai disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair ,-9UJ!^ isjy aq^ jo^ pesiej ©q0} paffliiijed eq puueo 'uoiuido jno ui 'QLUBS 94} 'uopoi|dde ou seq wo^ xe 'uoiuido jno u4 'LJOILIM pv uonesusdiuoo S.UBLU^JOAA 9M^ jo Aiijjqeojidde sqi 0} pj86ej ui pssi.ej ueeq SuiAeq uojiue^uoo AUB p aouesqe u| -sBjyed 9i{} Aq pjooaj uo ^ijSnojq sjsue^etu sij^ uo p9p93oojd 'ajo^ejaqi 'ynoo 46jH ©41 os|e se jeunqui 941 -ynoo q&H aq^ -10 [eunqyi eqt ejopq pesigj U99q J84^9 peq sn ajo^eq pesiej suoi^uaiuoo ayi ^gq^ Jeedde pu seop usAe |i •eieoyiijso e qons enssj Q} ^ue^dtuoo se/w 94 jeq^qM o^ se uMOU>i ^ou osie si ^ •UMOU>| PU S| 9SIMJ94P JO RV UOI^SUedLUOQ S,U9LU>|JOAA 9L|^ P SUOjSIAOjd 9LJ} p siseq sij} uo pa^jnojeo SEM %09 le ^!l!qes!P 3M'+ ^M^MAA "90U9p!Aa ui BiqissiLUpe }OU SBM t! '^SSUUJM pBUILUBXe eieoyiyeo eq} p joq^ne 941 sssjun •peuiuexB ussq ^ou pei| aieoyi^iao pjes sq^ p joq^ne aiji •u ou>j pu si 9oe|d >jooi iuepjooe 941 jaye sjgsA o/v\i penssj SBM eieoyjijeo e qons 'siseq ^eqM. UQ •^ueijedde ©q^pe^esji le^jdsoy eq^ p uoeGjng J!A!O 9Mi J9l|}94M 01 SB UMOU>{ }OU si ^ -sjeeA OM.} jeue peuie^qo seM eseo siq^ uj uojisenb ui B^eoiji^eo BLII •|,|,,, : s, f. ejed ui suoi^eAjesqo 6uiMOi|Oj 944 Miim MBJA eujes aLj^ peiejstiej !§0£oos i (8002) ui pepodej 'jayioue pue v6uis -iiAvpnA 'A "fey se!l®ieuin>| ijsafey p sseo sqi ui lunpip IUQOQJ e ui ynoo xedy SL|I 'Z ./UMejpLj^jAA ueeq Apeejje lou SELI i! ji !|eunqyi 941 Aq pepjeMe uopsuedLuoo ^o ^unoLue eq^ Mejpy^iM G} p9Mo||e si ;ueLuie|o-^u9puods3j eqi -ieunqui sujiejo eq^ ^o pj8M8 ©q^ sjo^sej pue japjo peuSnduj! aq^ apise ps 'jesdds SIL|^ moije 9M 'Aj^uanbasuoo •uoj^esuedujoo sv^ DUjoueque pue auies 9Lii Dusqjn^sip ui pejje ynoo qDij-j eqi Tio^esueauuoo ^N^ Subbu 8. !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aSias Raju v. Yudhvlr Sjngh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appeltant/claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctorwho had issued the said certiflcate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancementof the compensation in the case. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal filed by the appeiiant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs_, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^