HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH 05 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRIRAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH RHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant/ Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Misc.ADpeal No. 331 of 2011 Amit Patel, S/o Dashram patel, aged about 27 years, R/o House No.37/504, Manokamana, Near Hanuman Mandir, Yadav Mohalla Tikrapara, Bilaspur district Bilaspur VERSUS 1. Smt. Rina Shah (Jotwani) aged about 30'yearS,W/o Dinesh Jotwani, R/o Himalay Cold Storage, In front of Dhuppad Petrol Pump GE Road, Raipur CG (Driver of Santro Car NO.CG-04-H-4077) 2. Masers Himalay Cold Storage, In front of Dhuppad Petrol Pump GE Road,Raipur (CG) Through Dinesh Jotwani, aged about 33 years, S/o Narayan Jotwani, R/o Himalay Cold Storage, In front of Dhuppad Petrol Pump GE Road, Raipur CG (Owner of Santro Car No.CG-04-H-4077) 3. Reliance , General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Lalganga Shopping Malt Raipur District Raipur (CG) (Insurer of Santro Car No.CG-04-H-4077) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellant. ^, yc:ss^ K %^y% "j t '""'LJ/ ''%.. ':"€/ 2 ' ORDER (16th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ' ' " : ..'..^- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learnedcounsel for theappellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant/ claimant - Amit Patel is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.02.2011, passed in Claim Case No. 163/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.3,82,000/- 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 22.03.2010, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 4) Shrj Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low^ compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) Forthe reasons best known to the claimant, no doctorwas examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor i:j !^syK^ s accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate producedby 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 (2005) 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.certificateissued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for hon- examination ofthat doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitraand awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Courterred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comDensation. 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 observationsin para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not knpwn 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 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 dp^ not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as ' atso 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 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) The medical certificates prdduced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singhand another (Supra),cannot be taken No consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. nimml 9) We, therefore, do not findany 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/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge