HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 892/2003 APPELLANTS 1 . APPLICANTS o RESPONDENTS 1. NON- APPLICANTS w ORAL ORDER (re—2010) Heard on admission. Johra Khatoon, W/ o Kamruddin, aged about 3O years, Occupation House wife and Labourer Afroja Khatoon, D / o Kamruddin, aged about 10 years, Minor through Gaurdian Mother Johra Khatoon Kesar Mohammd, S/o Kamruddin, aged about 7 years, Minor through Gaurdian mother Johra Khatoon Jamil Ahmad, S/o Kamruddin, aged about 4 years, Minor through Gaurdian mother Johra Khatoon Shabnam Bano, D/o Kamruddin, aged about 1 1/2 years, minor through Gaurdian mother Johra Khatoon A11 are R/o village Jagarnathpur, P.S. 8a Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (CG) Versus Subodh Mandal, S/o Kailash Mandal aged about 28 years, occupation Driver, R/o New Mines Bhatgaon, P.S. 8L Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja CG (DRIVER) Ravindra Singh, S/o Rambahadur Singh, aged about 3O years, R/o Ring Road Namna' Kala Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (CG) (OWNER) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Sadar Road’ Near (S.B.I.) Ambikapur distt. Surguja (CG) (INSURER) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT :—Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla with Shri Atnu Ghosh, Advocate, for the appellants. 2. Appellants/ claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the IIIRD Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (FTC), Distt. Surguja \ F‘w \9 (for short “the Tribunal”) Vide award dated 22-8—2003 passed in Claim Case No. 9/2002. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 7-3—2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 16,000/— as compensation. 4. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that ‘the Tribunal has erred in awarding 10W compensation of Rs. 16,000/— only for the injuries sustained by the’claimants in the said accident, Whereas u ~ the appellants/ claimants sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. LFor the reasons best known the appellants / claimants no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellants/ claimants in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimants before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the asse§Sment 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 : a“ ‘ “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 High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and farecompensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the 3 2m 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.” The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the cas°e 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 1 1 : “ 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 Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” In the instant case, it is not proved as to how many days the appellants remained in hospital. It is also not proved as to how much amount they spent in. treatment except and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the doctor has not been examined to prove the injury and certificates, an amount of Rs. 16,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants . 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 certificate produced before the Tribunal in the i absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate 4 ié‘ néither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into ‘ consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ‘ The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ;an N