HIGH COURT OF CHHATT16GARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVi: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appeliant CSaimant M.A.(C) (PRl NoJ76 of 2010 Ramnarayan, S/o Kawat Say, Aged about 30 years, Caste Rajwar, Occupation - Service, S.E.C.L. R/o Village Kailashpur, Tahsi! Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Non-applicants Limited, Branch Office Ambikapur, Near Ambedkar Chowk, District Surguja (C.G.) Insurer. 2. Surajbhan, S/o Jagpati, Aged about 55 years, R/o Manpur, Surajput, P.S. Post & Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G). Driver. 3. Bajranglal Agrawal, S/o Sadhu Ram Agrawal, Aged about 53 years, R/o Ketka Road, Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Insurer. Memorandum of Appeal U/S 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (20tnApril,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^' 1"A, ..^fs ^ Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appeilant are heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Ramnarayan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.12.2009, passed in Claim Case No.47/2006. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.10,95,110/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest of Rs.5,000/-. 4) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only. 5) 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 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 (200S) 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 disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court commjtted 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 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina 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 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. 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 aythor of the certificate examined himself. it was not -^ '-^ ^y 4 admissibte in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was catculated 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 a!so 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 appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, jn our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) In view of the above quoted dictao^ 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 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 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 appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu