HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON' KON' SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. SHRI RANGNATH CHANDR^<AR,J Diciiiijci! ii .A.NO. 813 of 2004 Rajkumar Agrawal, s/o Devkinandan Agravval, aged about 28 years, occupation - Cioth Merchant. (Owner of Goya! Saree Emporium, Raigarh Road, Pattalgaon) r/o Village patthalgaon, Distrtet Jahspur CG 1. Ganesh Prasad Gupta, s/o Shri KC Gupta, aged about 30 years, Occupatton - Vehicle Driver and Registered vehicle ov»'ner, r/o village Mahadevdand (Kurong)PS and Tehsil Bagicha, District ^~dS v r^^ 1 >->».,> (Driver/Owner) 2 Manager / Competent Officer, United India insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Block No.2, II nd Floor, Paryavas Bhawan, Arera Hills, Bhopai, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir Ambikapur, District Surguja, CG (Insurer) Miscellaneous Appeal u/s173 ofthe MlotorVehicles Act Present : ShrJAKPrasad, counselfortheappellant. Shri Dasarsth Gupta, counse! for respondent No.2. ORDER ind (22"° March,2010) The followlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. B (...••:• .•: .^*^ :" •fj' 't? ^v •'ts,:. iA, a "f:f\ Appellant Rajkumar Agrawal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.05.2004, passed in Claim Case No.04/2004. 2) As agalnst the compensation of Rs.47,95,575/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for-the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 07.07.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,28,750/- as compensation atong wit'n interest @. 9% per annum from the date offlling of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri AK Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal haserred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,28,750/- only, though the appellant / claimant sustained multlple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 45%. 4) Before the Tribunal, the elaimant examined as many as three witnesses including himself (AW/1 Rajkumar Agrawal, AW/2 Laxman Ram Yadav and AW/3 Radhey Shyam Sharma) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appetiant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the natureof the injuries said.to-have been sustained by the appeltant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries resulted in any permanent disability. f-n;^"" ^-lfl .'^^^^ ^ia. '•ih^ '^i "•».. » y 5) The question whetherthe medical certificate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunal without examlnina the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon assubstantive evidence forthe assessment'of the compensation came up for conslderation before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent—clalmant 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 disabllity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiqh Court commltted qross error in overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medlcal certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Trlbunal has determined the phvsical disabttitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr hWI Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The l-1iah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comDensatlon. Consequently, we aliow thls appeal, set aside the impugned order / and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to wlthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, iflt has notalr§adybeen wlthdrawn." The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of Rajesh 6) Kumaralias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in —j -^ .._.. 'ia ^id""'^i f / f •5r-^^" .'ff (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following obsen/ations inparall : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained aftar two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, sucti 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 hlmself. it was not admissible in evidence, Whether the disabilitv at 60% was calcuiated 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 Tribuna! 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 appticabllity 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." 7) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medicai • certifieates and the'Bisability certificate produced before the Tribunat without examining the Doctors who had issued those certlficates, cannot be taken into conslderation for enhancement of the compensation in the case. ii^-t^a;r ^^-^ £? .i3 5 8) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal, filed bythe appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and 1s hereby dismissed. 10} No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma "%• lilBl- ''] 1.1' •••i 3.:--.- t'n'fl I'. . •• AaNSSSBA