/ ,:;.l.':"":'%-<3i,, \. i K ^ I?:-' ^%^-... '^ ..^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJQNBENCH CORAM: Appellant Claimant HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc.ADDeal(C)No.16Q9 of 2009. Bodhan Ram, son of Devnath, aged about 58 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Village Ramnagar, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS Respondents 1 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limtied, Madina Manzil, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (CG) 2 Rakesh Kumar Gupta, son of Shri Ramchandra Gupta, aged about 28 years, resident of Ambikapur, Darripara, District Surguja (CG) 3 Mohd Gulsher Bux, son of Shri Rahim Bux, Caste Musalman, Occupation Driver, aged about 26 years, resident of Cinema Dafai, Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG) IVIemo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri AK Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. ORDER »th (09tnSeptember,2011) ^;"-?^, /'^€"\ MACNo.1609 of 2009 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri A.K. Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 2) Appellant/claimant Bodhan Ram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 167/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- 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 20.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.27,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri AK Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.27,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident and spent substantial amount on his treatment. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellanV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. MACNo. 1609 of 2009 ^> 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 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 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 deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court 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 jn 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 : ^•r:r^^.\ ^^ ^ ^^"^ i %^--^ ;I W^''^...:^M '^.sy' MACNo.1609 of 2009 "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 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 be raised for the first time." 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. /'.f^ '^ MACNo.1609 of 2009 10) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu