@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' DIVISION BENCH CORAM‘. HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON’BLE SHRI R;L. JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal No. 981 of 2005. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 {2) of the Motor Vehictes Act. Present : Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appeHant. Shri J.A. LOhani. counsel for respondents No.1&2. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (04m February, 2010) s The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. l Appellant — Kiran Kumar Deykatey is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 14‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) Appenant Kiran Kumar Deykatey, Aged 38 yrs“ Applicant S/o Lt. Chintaman Deykatey, R/o Quota Housing Board Colony, PS Aamanaka. Tah.& Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents Mannulal Sahu, S/o Sukalu Sahu, Age Non-applicants 42 yrs., Driver Rlo Bangla Para, Tumgaon, Teh.& Distt. Mahasamund (CG). 2 Nazaruddin Bhathi, S/o Nizamuddin Bhathi, Age 39 yrs., R/o Near Poiice Station, PO Tumgaon, Teh.& Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. By Divisionat Manager, Dtvisionat Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). @ vide award dated 30.06.2005, passed in Claim Ca$e' No.106/2OQ4. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.26,00,000/— claimed by the appeHant/ciaimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.12.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.10.000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3\. ’ Shri Raia Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/— only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW-1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5) 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. r / @ P. Thirupal Reddy, repoded in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it. was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing Iearned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was .no justmcation for the u, 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 reiected bv 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. KM. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing 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 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. lt 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 saidcertificate had not been examined. Unless the ‘ author of the certmcate examined himself it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% s was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is aiso 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 Tribunai or the High COurt. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 7) 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 certificates 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 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the.Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement compensation awarded by the Tribunal. subbu l \'\ of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) - No order as to costs. Sd/- l R.L. Jhanwar sdl- Chief Jusu‘ce Judge . r“ Judge ,l .