,^ f ^iig \<> <f" w:m HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 12-O^z^.&o5- Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-Applicants Nirankar Tiwari, S/oNankiram Sharma, Age 40 R/o Rohinipuram, PS Aamanaka, Raipur(CG) Versus 1 Santram Dhurve, S/o Sukaluram Dhurve, R/o Lini Road, PS Taarbahaa, Bilaspur 2 Capt. Ramphal Through, Shiva Transport, SECLGevara, DisttKorba 3 The New India InsuranceCo. Ltd., by Divisional Manager, Divisional Offjce, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur Misc.ADpeal under Section 173 ofthe Motdr Vehicle Act Present : Shri Pawan Keshanwani, counsel forthe appellant. None fcw the respondents. >th ORDER (08tnFebruary,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Nirankar Thwari is seeking enhancement of the comperisation awarded by the 13 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated -'t ' •*• \ 12.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.47/20041 2) As against the compensation'of Rs.35,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by Tiling a claim petition under Section 166 Tp'i|i>^i^j^^si::' ^s^ •K,M& '"Ni.J1*- of the Motor Vehictes Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3} Shri Pawan Kesharwani, leamed counsel for the appetlant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,25,0007- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself atone as AW-1 in support of the claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establishthe nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ctaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certiflcate 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 Vs 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 Cc^urt to rely ;:'^».x u: on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatlon by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvslcal disabilitvat 15 per cent on the basisofthe deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbma 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." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same viewwith the foltowing 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 Surgepn of the hospitat 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. Untess the author otAhe certificate examined himsetf. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Qompensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as -\v ""11 niuriEI ^^^.s;../^ st; :i: ''fe : 1»,,^...^, wfa"''^y !''^aSix'"''' ipadma 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 parfies. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabitity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, eannot be permitted to be raised for the flrst time." 7) The medical cerdficate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant 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 Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra),Gannot betaken ihto consideration for enhancemeht ofthe compensation. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe eompensation awarded by the Tribunat. 9) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) l)(o order as to costs. Sd/- - Chief Jusdce _r~