^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJOJSLBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Misc Appeal (Cl No. 659 of 2011 Appellant Claimant Smt Shail Devi, W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Rawat, aged about 43 years, R/o Nagar, PS Bishrampur, District - Surguja (CG) c Respondents VERSUS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District - Surguja ... Jnsurer of the vehicle Pawan Kumar Singh, S/o Dharmnath Singh, aged about 38 years; R/o Ward No.8, Jailpara, Surajpur, District - Surguja(CG) .... Owner of the vehicle Shravan Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Jalandhar, aged about 35 years; R/o Nagar, PSSurajur, District — Surguja Driver ofthe vehicle Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehides Act Present : Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for the appeltant ORDER (27th June, 2011) & Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant/ claimant Smt. Shail Devi is seeking enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the 2nd Addjtional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') videaward dated 11.03.201 1, passed in Claim Case No.82/2008. , 3) As againstthe compensation ofRs.19,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 / of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the .motor accident on 26.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.29,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion till the date of actualpayment. 4) Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy arguedthat the Tribunal haserred in awarding low compensationof Rs.29,000/- only, though the appellanfcfclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the number and nature of the injuriessaid to have been sustained bythe appeliant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produeed by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence s ^. ":t. for the assessment ofthe compensationcame up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein itwas 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 disabitity to be 45 percent. The High 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 KMMitra and awarded a iust and faircomDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims TribunaJ. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has notalready been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, 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 R K & 4;:- . / whether the Civil Surgeon ofthe 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. |t even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunalor the High Court. The Tribunal as alsothe Hi^h Court, therefore, proceededon 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 thefirst time." 8) The medical certificates produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs 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 theTribunal. ^l..A ^ ^.S4g ^"; c'^v 10) The appeal, filed by the appeltant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. i—— -—- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge