HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 461 of2008 Aopeliant Ciaimant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Brijendra S/o. S.L. Ahirwal, aged about 21 years, R/o. Sector 7, Road-36, Qtr. No. 4B; Bhitai Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Tanvindar Singh, S/o. Kewal Singh, aged about 22 years, R/o. HJG 2362, Housing Board, Jamul, Poiice Station : Jamul, TahsiS & District Durg (C.G.) (Dnver) 2. Kewai Singh S/o. Chann Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o. HIG 2362, Housing Board, Jamul, PoEice Station : JamuE, Tahsli & District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House Bhiiai, Tahsii & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Insyrer) MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 19^ Present: Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, tearned counsel on behalf of Shri Santosh Yadu, iearned counseE for the appelSant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (9tn September, 2009) The fol!owing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: \ This is claimant's appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No.31/2006. 2. Claimant Brijendra Kunciar ciaimed compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.02.2006. 3. The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the daimant awarded a total sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ftling of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, learned counsei for the appetlant. vehemently argued that the Tribunat has erred in awarding meager amount of Rs.1,500/- as compensation though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent disability. 5. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that as the claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him inthe motor accident resulted in any fracture or led to any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts-and circumstances of the present case. 6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses inciuding himself in support of his claim (AW1 Brijendra Kumar and < AW2 Vishwanath Mishra). For the reasons best known to the appelIanV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7. 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 vs. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para6 asunder: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-cjaimant 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 disabitity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiooRina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicat certificate was reiected bv ti6ie Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunat has determlned the phvsica! djsability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequentiy, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- ciaimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 8. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 'j;^^- (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foltowjng observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate jn question in this case was obtained after fwo years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant. On what .basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took pSace is not known. The author of the sald certlficats had not been examined. _Unless_Jhe^^ythor_of the certificate examined himself. It was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t is aiso not knovvn as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. jt even does not appear that the contentlons ralsed 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 applJcablSity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appllcation, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appeliant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation jn the case. 10. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by the appelianVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge nim;.^