•B:. HIGH COURT OF^CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 951 of 2006 Appellant : Sunil Kumar Shukla, S/o Lakhan Lal, Claimant aged about 27 years, R/o Shubham Fancy & General Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari, district Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Non-Claimants VERSUS Josef Farnandis s/o. R. Farnandis, R/o. in front of Prfem Nagar, Railway Colony Qr. No. 98/C, Charoda, Old BhiJai, District Durg (C.G.) Rajesh Verma S/o P.K. Verma, R/o. Qr. No. 5/11, Street No. 21, Sector 1, Bhilai district Durg (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg, through Divisional Office No.2, Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehidesAct 19881 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. ORDER (8tnJuly,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. -^ /^' Learned counsel forthe parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Sunil Kumar Shukla is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 23-11-2005, passed in Claim Case No.68/2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- 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 acddent on 16-11-2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multtple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses namely AW1 Sunil Kumar Shukla and AW2 Santosh Kumar in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature ofthe jnjuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. ^ \J. 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 tearned 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 Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicat 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. K.M. Mitraand awarded a iust and fair compensation. 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 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 (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : / !? ^^, *& 1 ^' "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Cjvil 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 examinecl, 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 Hlgh Court. The Tribunal as also the Hjgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appljcability 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 rajsed for the first time." 8) 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), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, 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 the Tribunal. fF- /y/e"';i ':i. l^) ^>^y nimmi 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge