® OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BENCH HON'BLE GUPTA, CJ. & HO^'BLE RANGNATH CHAiSIDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeai (Cl No. 9CS of 2010 Cjalmant Laiit Kumar Rathiya, S/o Suraj Pai Rathiya, aged about 38 years, R/o Viltage Sithra (Ramnagar) Post Sithra, Tahsil Dharamjalgarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Responidents Non-appiicants VERSUS 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta, S/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, aged about 26 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Viliage Kudeike!a, PS Chhai, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt Raigarh (CG) 2. Shiv Prasad Gupta, S/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta, aged about 51 years, Occupation Owner R/o Puranga, Post Hati, Tahsii Dharamjaigarh, Dlstt Raigarh (CG) 3. United India insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer Saria Vllla, Chakradhar Nagar, Chowk Raigarh, Distt Ralgarh (CG) Aepeaj under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Manoj Jaiswai, iearned counsei for the appellant. (22n£tSeptember, 2010) The foiJowing order of the Court was passed by i, CJ. "•^, Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant is h.eard on admission. 2) Appeilant - Lailt Kumar Rathiya is seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additlona! Motor Accident Clalms Tribunat; Raigarh (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 30-06-2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.18/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.25,79,000/- ciaimed by the appeliant/clsimant by filing a daim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 18-1 1 -2005, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.23,723/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Manoj Jaiswa!, learned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.23,723/- oniy, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examlned before the Tribunal to estabtish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the ciaimant sn the motor accldent and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabjljty. 6) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor ,;^"^, ^^ .'&^, "^' ••v^a^ 1 M^^S. !:' who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatjon came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P, Thinspal Reddy, reported in (20G5) 12 SCC 189; wherein It was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- daimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the Hioh Court to reiy on the disabiiity certiflcate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the Injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsicai dlsabilJtv at 15 per cent on the basis of the aeDpsitson of Dr. K.M. Mltra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in dlsturbina the same and enhancjng the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the C!aims 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 dict.um in the case of Rajesh Kumar alsas Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foSiowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether -asfc^ the CivJI Surgeon of the hospita! treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two vears after the accident took pface is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess th_e aythor ot the certlflcate examined himself. it was not admisslbje in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certjflcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court; therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appSJcabiiJty of the Workmen's Compensatjon Act which; In our opinjon; ex facie has no application, the same; in our opjnion, cannot be permltted to be raised for the first time." 8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P, SRTC ¥„P. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar Raju v» Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicaS certlficate and the disability certificate produced by the appeilant/ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certjficates, 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. .^^s>-.<"'"^ 's^ 10) The appeaf filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation; therefore, is llabje to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. ^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi