HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants Claimants P.S. Misc. Appeal No. 251 of 2005 Baban Das, s/o Banshdhari Das, aged about 32 yrs. Budhram, s/o Nanhi, aged about 37 years. Sukita, d/o Candrabhan, aged about 15’years, minor through guardian father Chandrabhan, s/o Somaruram, aged about 37 years. Subran, s/o Basant, aged about 7 years, minor through guardian father Basant, S/o Nanhi, aged about 32 years. All‘ are R/oh, aVilIage Sayar, Lakhanpur, distt. surguja C.G. Versus t” Kamiakant Singh, s/o Guiab Singh, aged about 24 years, R/o. Kedma, P.S. Lakhanpur,Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. (Driver) ' Jagannath, S/o Basjit Singh aged about 62 years, r/o. Udaypur, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tahsii Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (Owner) United India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Post/RS. & Tahsil Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (insurer) Memo of ggpeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents Non—applicants h ¢ Present: -Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Sashi Bhushan, Iearned counsel for respondent No. 2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Iearned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (10th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. " The appeHants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.1 1 .2004, passed in>Claim Case No.25/2004.' 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each (total Rs.20,00,000/-) claimed by the appellants/claimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 07.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.36,500/—; Rs.2,000/—; Rs.10,000/-; and Rs.2,000/— to claimants No. 1 to 4 — Baban Das, Budhram, Sukita, and Subran, respectively as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim‘ petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, Iearned counsel for t‘he appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low cOmpensation of Rs.36,500/—; Rs.2,000/—; / \x Rs.1,000/—; and Rs.2,000/— only to claimants No. 1 to 4 — Baban 0 Das, Budhram, Sukita, and Subran, respectively, though the appellants/ claimants sustained multiple serious injuries in ‘the motor accident. 4) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with ‘Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and Circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri Sashi Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 6) Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined themselves in support of their claim. For the reasgns best known to the appellants/ claimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal. to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by them in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) 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 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 \ \ v ~ \N \ l \ High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. 'The Hiqh Court committed qross error in overlooking 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 Dhvsical disabilitv 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 enhancinq 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.” ‘ a 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in l” (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1'1 : “1 1. 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 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 4 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.” 9) The medical certificates produced by the claimants 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. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No orderasto costs. 3 sdi- ‘ SunilKumar Sinha Sdl- Judgerre a, W Chief Justice l subbu