@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.198 of 2002 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act1 1988 Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Appellant Dhaniram son of Jagsai, Caste Urao, Claimant aged about 14 years Minor Guardian father Jagsai son of Lalsai, Caste Urao, Occupation Cultivation, resident of village Salka PS Premnagar, Tah Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS Respondents United india insurance Co.Ltd., Through Non-applicants. ‘ Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near v Ram Mandir Ambikapur Distt Surguja (CG) Insurer 2 Baba @ Rajeshwar S/o Narmada Prasad Yadav, aged about 28 years occupation Driver, resident of village Tikarapara Premnagar, PS Premnagar, - Tah Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) Driver 3 Ghanshyamdas Agrawal, S/o Dhaniram Agrawai, aged about 35 years, occupation Business, resident of Village Premnagar, PS Premnagar, Tah Surajpur Distt Surguja (CG) Owner ORDER (10m July; 2009) The following order of the Coud was passed by jRajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are‘heard on admission. i2) Appellant/claimant Dhaniram is seeking enhancement of ‘the compensation awarded by 'the First Additional Motor u . Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Camp Court at Surajpur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 26.1 1 .2001, passed in Claim Case No.1 08/2001. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- 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 06.05.1999, the'Tribunal awarded a total sum .of Rs.4,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of - actual payment. 4) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 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. l RS143 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied 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 Raddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing teamed counsel for the responden- ; claimant‘who made an'attempt to support the order of the u C Vlp ent. . ’ - Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award sf the Claims Tribunal. The respondenlaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compeation awarded by the ribunal, if it has not already been ithdrawn." 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 1 1 : t t e High Cort, we find that there was no justification for the High ourt to rely on the disability certificate issued y Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhanc the compensation by treating the injury as permanen disability to be 45 per c The High Court committed dross error in overlooking the fact that Dr.Sudhakar Reddys medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation; tc ns T w “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 appeilant. 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. it was not 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. ln 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 first time.” 8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the l 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 by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. i"V @ 9) The appeal filed by the appenant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable1 to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. /x i s Sdl— Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sun“ Kumar Sinha \\ Judge i subbu ow