HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVlsl0N BENcH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI‘ RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Misc. fl No.3“ ofzoos Krishna Prasad Choubey, slo. late Kriparam Choubey, aged‘51 years, Rlo. Appenant 7 Claimant Shanti ‘Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tah & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Sukh Dave Sam} s/o. Phoolsingh 3am, R/o. Ganganagar, Khamtarah Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Rakesh Kumar Bhediya, sio. Jhumuklat Bhediya, R/o. Akash Gas Service, Devendra Nagar, Raiputi (C.G.) 3. The Oriental lnsurancev Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No. ll, Life Insurance 'Marg, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Memorandum of agpeal under Section 173 of the Motor ~ Vehicles Act. 198g Present :I Shri TA.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant. Bgpondents 1 . Non-applicants ' ORDER (23“ June. 2010) The following order or the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant - Krishna Prasad Choubey is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.07.2003, passed in Claim Case No.66/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- 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 04.02.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.'20,426/‘ as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of ‘ actual payment. 3) Shri A.L. Singraui, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.20,426/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includingfractures in the motor ‘ accidentresultingin permanentdisability. r 4) > 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 bythe appellant/'v claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in anypermanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certihcate 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 AP. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005} 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : . “6. After hearing leamed counsel for the respondent- ‘ claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the x s i High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to relyron the disabitity certmcate issued by . Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabilityto be 45 per cent. The High ‘Court , committed gross error in roveriooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai‘ certificate was retested by the Tribunal for non-' examination of that doctor The Tribunal has determined ‘ the phystcai disability at 15 per cent on the baSis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the. same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allowthis appeal, set aside the impugned orderjand restore the award of the Claims Tribunar The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tnbunal if it has not already been Withdrawn " 6) TheApex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar atias Raju v. Yudhvir. Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7V SCC 306, 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 certifcate had not been examined Unless the author of the certificate examined himself it was not admtssrbie in evrdence Whether the drsability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provrsmns of the“ Workmen’s" Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. s ’iK, 7) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the casesof A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir singh andanother (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor 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 compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is ’fieréBy dismissed.‘ /f 10) ‘ No order asto costs 171% fr§§ffi . . . RN. Chanal’kkal‘ L, It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certmcate. It even does not appeat that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the‘ materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of rany contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex rfacie has no application, the same, in ’ourropinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” I/ i i sw- V v , judge Chief Justice The appeal tiled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement f @ ” , «