(saaF-" '^"••:"''s'-°-''-'wf-i'j-;:T.""-.' ^,; ^•fSfK.^^ "'*•<„ 1^"^ <E •^,A«ir^ ;.'^AC?~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. .-.-V, Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal No.667 of 2005 Surendra Singh Chawla, aged about 42 years, S/o Sardar Anant Singh, through next friend Smt Manjit Kaur, W/o Surendra Singh Chawla, aged about 38 years R/o Naharpara, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Jatin Pal Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o Jagjit Singh, Occupation - Driver & Owner, R/o Main Road, Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (CG) Memo ofappeal under Section 173 ofthe lUlotorVehicles Act. Present: Shri AL Singraul, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER •th (15'" June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Surendra Singh Chawla is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Additional /. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2005, passed in Claim Case No.73/2004. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- 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 23.11.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,09,236/- as compensation along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3). Shri AL Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,09,2367- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Seira, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.2,09,236/-, though the appellant could not legally establish the fact that he sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many as two witnesses (AW/1 Manjit Chawla and AW/2 Yogeshwar Rao Ghote) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish v^ the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him 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 substantive 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 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 disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiab C^urLcommjtted aross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv'sjnedical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examinatiorLof that doctor. The Tribunal has determjned the Bhysical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis o^ the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and_ faji comi3ensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbino 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." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 4 (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. 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. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal 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 applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Actwhich, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (^) 10) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11 ^—Moj3rdeLas_tocosts. Sd/- Chlef Justice subbu Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge