HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT Btl-ASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKARJ. ADpellant Oaimant 1\flisc.ApBeaLNo.5Q2jof2004 '' . ' .' '•. Mahadev Singh, S/o Risham Singh, aged abput 40 years, OccuRation- Service, R/Q In front of Imali Bhata Roael, Ne.arl ^badi Shop, Ayodhya Nagar, ^l'aBsil ; & E)istHs4ahasa(nand Versus Respondents 1 Tutu Kumar Jain, S/oAnandJain,aged Non-applicants about 29 years, R/o Jani Shahi Transport, KsAak, Orisa, Vjlage-Jansai, Police Station Dashpali, Distt-Nayagarh Orissa. Present Address: Bajrang Transport, Ring Road, Bhanpuri, Raipur (CG) 2 Ratnakar Behara, S/o Late Kang Behra, R/o Gitapar, Katak, Katak-2, Qrissa Truck Owner Truck No.OAC 7195 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, ;Through Divisional Manager, Divisionaf Office-Jail Road, Madina Buikling First Floor, Jait Road, Raipur Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe lyiotorAtehicle Act •^ . / Present: Shri CR Sahu.lind GKSahu, learnedeounsel forthe appellant. .,•: ' •:-: •.'. ,::Y: ; : ::; . •: ,' None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Shailendra Sfaatma, teamed counse! for {reSpQndentNo.3. ^ ^:Ey^R: WMsy.WW) JIi3Ui- gflWVl '46U!S A8PBMB|AI (t//VW)}.t|3SU)!t| 6uipn]6u! sssssiytiw Jno} seAi.ieusepsujLuex3}uetM!B|as^'|Bunq!y;34t|8ja|sg(s •SSB3!lU9S3jd8t|tjOS33UB}SUJnCU!OpUBStOB18l|}U!UOIieSU3dLU03. jsdbjcl pue }snf si leunqyj. 9L|} Aq pspjeAfte -/oos'Zfr'sy jo uoi^uad.uuoo sift teqypspyaiuoa pue pjewe siyi psijoddns / ' < ' ...':•• • puBi) J94}6 8t(} uo Auediuoo souejnsul leiusijo 341 e-ON )uspuodsej j(y |3sunoo p8ujB9| 'euyeys ejpusiieijs U4S \^ •Al!|tqes!piU8UBiuj3du!6u!t|ns8J4U9p!OoejO}OLUsyiU!89JRpEj^ 6u!pn|ou! seunfui snoyss 3|djt|nLu psuie}sns IUBUIIBIO flueiisdde ayi qBnoi)} A|UO -/OQS'Z^'sy jo uoitesusdLuoo MQ| BuipjeME ui psjjs sei) leunqui 34} i6q} psnBje A|}U8LU3i|SA 4ue||9dde 9i|} jo^ lesunoo psujesi 'nLjes >|o yys PUB 0453 yo WS (g •lueuiAed |enpe jo siep 341 |l!l uo'lBsd IJUIBIO 34} jo Guiiujo 8}ep 941 uiojj Lunuue jsd %^ @ 1S9J3}U! L)}!/V\ 6uo|e uoiiesuadLuoo se -/ooS'Zt''sy P uins IBIO} e pspjBMB leunqyi 3ti} 'tOOZ'ZO'fri uo luspiooe JO}OLU 3i)} ui luiqAq peyieisn&seynfy! a!.)tJo£)ovss|0!q9/vjOto|/\|3L|}.t6 991 uy!^S8^8pun;uo!}jpd|iujB| ;&6y^ AqpstU!Bp-/ooO'98't't.'sa,louo!tesuadluoo3Mt4SU!B6BSv fe I.-ON 3SBO Lureio ui passed 'TOOS'lO'Oe pstep PJBME spiA (.IBunqyi 341, yoys jo^) punujBseyeiAi 'ieunqyi SLUJB|O luspioov JO}Q|/\| |eu0!}!ppv tSJy 94} Aq pspiBMB uonesusdiuoo et)}jo lusLusouequs Bui^ssss! 46013 ASpeyen—tue||sddv T'O'eidno Aaafey Aq psssed SBM ijnoo SL)} p jspjo BUIMOIIO^ eyi dA«8iidii*ril—*iia—l—lii Chowaram Satnami, AW/3 Dhanendra Kumar Mishra and AW/4 NC Swain insypport ofhisclaim. Forthe reasons best knownto the appellant / Glaimant, no doctor was examined_before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustainedbytheappellanVclaimantinthenriotoraccidentandthe factthatthoseinjuriesresultedinanypermanentdissbility. 6) The question whether the me(}ical;c»TUfieate;prodyced by the claimant before ^hes^nbUHal£wi|EpuiEe)^^ who issued the certificate can be. relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration befbre 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 leamed counsel forthe respondent- claimanf who made an attempt to supportthe order ofthe High Gourt,we firri thatlherev^ Ngh Coyrt to rely on the disabilitycertificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and entieinee the compensatiori by treating the injury as permaneht disability to be 45 per cent. The Miah Court eommitted aross ^ error in overlookina the'Tact tlTait: Dr. Suclhal'ar ReddV&smeaica) certificate was reieGted bv the TnbunaligBOr non- examihation ofthatdoct6r.,^TKeTnbunal2fiasHeteFmined the phvsleal disabilitv e 15 oer cent ori^tfie; bssis df the debosition of Br. K.M.?Mitra andTawai'dStl'a iagtianet comDensation eriRaneina the e&mpensation. Cong^ueritly aDpealiSgt?asi8e;tHe^impugnediOFder awartl of tll^ Glaims Jribunal; The Hiah ©ourt^eri-effin aisturbina The "°>"&.u^;—3~ •wsw^ respondent-claimantisallowedtowithdrawtheamountof compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadvbeenwithdrawn." 7) TheApexiCourt in a recentdictum in the caseof Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singhand another, reported in (2008) 7SCC 305, reiterated thesame view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. TBe certificate; jn ^yesBon in this case was ^obtained after two years, tt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitaltreated the appeflant. On what basis, such a certifieate was issued two years afterthe accident took place is not known. The author of the said certifieate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate eXamiried 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 acertificate.it even does notappearthatthe 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 bythe parties. In absence of any contention having been rais»i in regard to the apptfcSbility of^theWorkmen's Compensation Act which, m our opinion, ex facts has no applieation, the same, in oyr opinion, cannot be permitted 16 b& raised for We first time."- I. ::- : • :• .. : 1;; :! '. '•' 8) In view ofthe above quotedcffGfa ofthe Apex Goyrt in the cases of A.P. SRTCv. P. Thirypal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh padma II ;]!l •5 Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of thecompensation awarded bytheTribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant forenhancement of the compensation, therefbre, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) Noorder as to costs. ^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ^