^ HIQHGC^m'O^CUHATrBG^lHJCT'BltASPUR ISMviSMSMt ^i CQR^: HQN^I.ES^ HON^ESUraWN^^^^ MiSC.AoDealNO^ 287 of 2005 Appellant : Maniram SQni sft? late h4ootehand Claimant Sonl aged abo^ occupation driver R/6 new N®w ft-imary Sehoot Ward-^ote; R.S. ArminaKa, Ratpur, Tahsilanddistriet RaipurC^S. _ .VERSUS'- .:;:::i. : . ': ! ResDondents Dfiver Ayyub Kurashi, gged 38 yeare ^b. Shif Yonush Kurashi occu(ffltfen Driver Serviee, R/o Raten lyiohaNa @ Pathlanpara 1 Rajnanc^aon, Tahsil and di^rict Rainanc^aon C.G. Owner 2. Jaa^nt Sir^, sfe La an Si^ ^:a^^^l:^^^^, ^ ^ GM^ yne,j^ajnianclga^ F^ & Thana andT^sirRsijnal'KlgaortC.G. 3. Kylde^>Singh, SteShn Syr^ Singh Raj^, aged ^ years^RA) Q^. No. Talibandh P.S< Atnanaka, Raipur Offlce Syrat Road LKies, near f^ilv^ Grossing Kota, Vtfard No.2, Krta^ KS. Am^rraka, ^t^ti and clistrictRalpurC.G; Insurer 4. The ©rientat Insuranefe Co. l-td; through DivlsionatMawagerfBra^ OffiicerJait Rdad Madtha BuBEling, f:irst Floor Rajpur 6.0. MEM<»lANDUM€BftiP^l.^^ Present: ShriAbhay^w^^unsellwfliejapp^^ NonefoTr^p^ei||Sil^,2anidil3^^^^^^ Shrift;K.^h^)iey,^^^1wre^oRaentNo.'€ .^ ^ ORDER (08th April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Guyrta, C.J. Appetlant - Maniram Soni is seeking enhancement of the compensation avrarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vlde award dated 28.10.2004, passed in Claim Case No:15/20)4. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- claimed by appetlant/ claimant Maniram Soni by Titing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accldent, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15.000/- as compensation alonfl with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has en-ed in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellant/ Glaimant sustalned multipte serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 20%. 4) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in the case. l1 ^ .f..^*"^' 8 %!"^-^ ^ ^ 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two w'rtnesses including himself (AW-1 Maniram Soni and AW-2 Manoj Soni) in support of the claim petition. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunaf to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the 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 substentive 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 ofc®ervedin para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ctaimant 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 46 per cent. The Hjgh Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was !%iected bv the Tribunal for non-examinatlon 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 iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently; we allow this appeal, set aside the jmpugned order and restore the award of the '^ •-•%-.? 4 Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant ts altowed to withdraw the amount of compensatlon 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 anofher, 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 appeltant. 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 ofthe 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 certfficate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal asalso 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 thefirsttime." ^ 8) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal wlthout examining the doetors who had issued those certificates, in view ofthe above quoted dicta ^ of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thimpal 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 flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarcted by the Tribunal. 10) The appeat filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge --°@>-- subbu n