.0'-^ '%.. :, 'isiP. a v< i.,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DJVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 830 of 2011 Appellant/ Claimant 1. Suresh Kumar aged about 31 years, s/o Sushil Kumar Sahu,r/o Bajrang Chowk, Magarlod, Tahsil Magarlod, distt. Dhamtari, C.G. VERSUS Bhupendra Kumar, aged about 25 years, s/o Balram Sahu, r/o Bajrang Chowk, Magarlod, Tahsil Magarlod, distt. Dhamtari C.G. Dular Singh, aged about 42 years, s/o Sonsai Sahu, R/o Village Bharda, Tahsil Magarlod, distt. Dhamtari C.G. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No.304, Lalganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Respondents Driver Owner Insurer Present: Shri Sameer Singh, counse! for the appellant. ORDER •th (04tnAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. ,—c^^^,,,'- .-"4. '^^ MAC.No. 830 of 2011 \fc 2) AppellanV claimant Suresh Kumar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.05.2011, passed in Claim Case No.136/2010. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- claimed by the appellanV 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 01.02.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.78,250/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.78,250/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) From para 11 of the impugned award, we gather that the claimant neither produced any disability certificate before the Tribunal nor examined any doctor for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV 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 MAC.No. 830 of 2011 v^ 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 hligh Court to rely on the disability certificate issued 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 non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Couri: erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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 MAC.No. 830 of 2011 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. 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 b.e raised for the first tjme." 8) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors 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 Singh and another (Supra), 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/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ,,.%^