HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appeiiant Claimant Respondents: Non-applicants ^ M.A.fC)No.322of2010 Nitesh Kumar Tamboli, S/o. Ravishankar Tamboli, aged about 21 years, R/o. Ward No.3, Bemetara, Police Station and Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG), VERSUS 1. Kuleshwar, s/o. Beddhu Kalar,aged about 20 years, r/o. viliage Tihupara, Post Office Slmga, Thana & Tahsii Simga, District Raipur (CG). 2. Tirath Ram Nishad, s/o. Buddhu Ram, aged about 30 years, r/o. viijage Kaohlon, Thana & Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. Rellance GeneraE insurance Company Ltd, Branch 4 flour, Ravibhavan, Jaistambh Chauk, Raipur(CG). ADpeal u/S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 for enhancement oftheawarcl Presenf: ShrE Sameer Singh, counsel for the appeIEant ORDER (26thofMarch,2010) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. - ' .p Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appeljant is heard on admisslon. 2) Appellant - Nitesh Kumar Tamboii, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.01.2010, passed in Claim CaseNo.74of2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the appeilanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident on 22.03.2008, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.36,438/- ascompensation aiong with jnterest @ 6% per annum from the'date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.36,438/- only whereas the appellant/ciaimant sustained multipie serious injuries in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the appeilanVclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the jnjuries said to have been sustained by the appeilant/ daimant in the motor acddentand the fact thatthose injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examlning the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment ofthe compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in thecase ofA.P.SRTCv. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing tearned counsel for the respondent- elaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification forthe High Court to rely on the disabitity certificateissued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance thecompensation by treating the injury as permanent disabilify to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in oyerlookingjhe fact_that Dr, Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examinatton of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsica! disabilitv at 15 per cerit on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, setaside the impugned order and restore the award of the Cfaims 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 inthe case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated thesame view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is notknown asto whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. A On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. Theauthor of the saidcertificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabliity at 60% was caicuiated on the basls of the provislons 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. Jt even does not appear that the contentions ralsed before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court, The Tribunal as aiso 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, thesame, 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 casesof 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 in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. ^S7S 10) The appea! filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge