.^. <l •^ c/0: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVJSSON BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARSVIA, J. APPELLANT CLASMANT RESPONDENTS (Non-apDlicants) IVI.A.C.No. 1624 of 2008 Ratni Bai, wife of Bhanwar Singh, aged about 45 years, occupation Cook, r/o viiiage Amadob, P.S. Gaureia, Tehsil Pendra Road, Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.). presently resident of Bazar Tola, Khongsara, P.S. and Tehsil Kota, Dlstt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1 Pratapdas, Son of Ishwardas, aged about 25 years, Caste Charan, r/o viliage Suratpura, P.S. Ratan Nagbar, Distt.Churu (Rajasthan), presently r/o indrajeet Singh, Behind Bharatmata School, Tatibandh, Raipur, C.G. (Driverofvehicle). 2 indra Jeet Singh, Son of Jogendar Singh, r/oTatibandh, Raipur(C.G). 3. The Oriental Jnsurance Co. Ltd., Branch Raipur (CG) IVIemo ofADpeal Under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Ratan Pushty, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (26th October, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,CJ. Appeilant Ratnl Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Motor Accidents Ciaims -A Tribunai, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.09.2008, passed in ciaim case No. 103/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- ctaimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accidenton 11.06.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3. Shri Ratan Pushty, iearned counsel for the appeiiant yehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred inawarding tow compensation of Rs.7,000/- only though the appellant/ ciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resultingin permanent disability. 4. Shri Sourabh Sharma, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the appellant couid not estabtish that the injuriessustained by her in the motor acddent resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Before the Tribunal the claimant examined as many as two witnesses including herself (Aw-1 Ratni Bai and AW-2 Jaideen) in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the appeSiant/ claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunai cfV v' €- l:p: V- to establish the nature ofthe injunes said to have been sustained by the appetiant/ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 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. ThirupalReddy, 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 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 Gourt 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 phvsica! disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhandng the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ctaimant is allowed to withdraw the amountof compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." ^- T^l c- ^...^. ;\ ' 4:k.. 7. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtainedafter 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. Jt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised befpre the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso 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." 8. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certjficate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the ""'-I • 7^ <. ^l^ subbu Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bytheTribunai. 10. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. l! Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge //""~"^