HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicant Misc.ADpealNo. 442 of 2002 Mohan Lal Vishwas, S/o Mandulal Vishwas, 18 years, R/o Juganj Camp, Teh. Kondagaon, distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Ranjit Chowdhary, s/o Kalipad Chowdhary, R/o Kumharpara, Jagdalplur, at present Chawra School Kondagaon, distt. Bastar. 2. S.D.0. Forest (General) Jagdalpur. 3. StateofM.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through : Collector Bastar, Jagdalpur. //.. Memo of appeal under Sectton 173 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act. Present: Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava. teamed counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents No.2 and 3/ State. ORDER (28th June, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appellant - Mohan Lal Vishwas is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdatpur (for short 'the '^--" ^ Tribunal') vide award dated 05.02.2002, passed in Claim Case No.03/1998. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- claimed by the appellant/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 09.04.1997, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.18,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.18,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses including himself (AW-1 Mohan Lal Vishwas and AW-2 Subhash) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known the appellanV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) 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 L 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 (200S) 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 flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabiljty 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 overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected 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 deDosition 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." 6) The Apex Court in 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 : "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. ^r-=rir^=-iF-".—----..-. .R L .'--\r T:T-'- 'ieunqui 94^ Aq pepjBMe uoiiBsueduioo aq) j,o iu9ijuaouei(u9 jo^ edoos Aue puy pu op 'ejo^jeyi 'e/w (g •aseo 94^ ui uoi^esuediuoo 941 P »U91U90UB4U9J01 UO!lBJ9pj8UOO O^UI u9)jBi sq »ouueo'9»eoy!V90 pies 941 psnssi peii OL|M jopoa 941 BUJUJUJBXQ }no4).iM |eunqui ei|i ejoiaq iuBijuiB|o/iUB|j9dde aqi Aq psonpojd eieoijiyeo leojpeiu 941 '(ejdns) jai||oue pue yBujs JjAypnA 'A nfBy sei|e jieuin)| qsa|ey pue (ejdng) ^ppay |ednjijyi "d •A oiys 'd'V P seseo ayt ui ijnoo xedy ayi p ep/p peionb 9Aoqe 941 p MQIA u| (^. <.'9UI!l <sjy 941 jo^ pssjej sq 01 payiLujed aq IOUUBO 'uoiujdo jno uj '9UUBS 9\^ fuo!»eoi|dde ou sei< eioej xa 'uoiujdo jno uj 'MOJM^ PV uojiesuaduioo s.uaiu>|jo/v\ 941 P Atjiiqeoiidde ayi o^ pjefisj ui pssiej uesq SUIAB^ uosueiuoo Aue p souesqe u| 'ssi^ied 94^ Aq pjooaj uo ii(6nojq sieusieiu 941 uo pspeeoojd '9joj9J94i 'pnoo M&H 941 os|e se (Bunqui aqj. 'iJnoo q&H eiji jo leunquj. 941 ejopq pssjBj U99q jayijQ pey sn ajo^eq pasiej suoiiueiuoo 94i leqi jeadde pu saop uaAS i| •aieoyi.tJQO B yons snssi o»tuaisdiuoo SBM 94 jsq^eiiM ot se UMOU)| IQU OS|B si K •UAAOU>| IOU Sl 9SIMJ9410 JO RV UOjieSUedlUOQ S,U9UJ>jJOAA 9l|l p SUOjSjAOjd 94} p siseq eqi uo paie|no|eo SBM %(^ }B Aijiiqesip 941 jayp^AA 'eouapiAs ui ajqissiujpe )OU SBM )j •J13SUIJ4 p9U{UJ8X9 Qyew^QO Q{^ p jo^tne eift ssaiun -peujUJBxa ueeq pu pei| eieoyiijeo pjes 941 p joiiine eqi 'UMOU)| pu si eoeid ^QO} luepiooe aqi jeye sjesA OM» p&nssi SBM aieoyiijeo B iions 'siseq iei|M uo K "tff^ i ^v 11 . '^1h. J 14/11 .y ..^^' subbu 9) The appeal filed by the appellanVdaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) Noorder as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice [>- Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge s