h— ^.F.^ HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR D8VISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI MANSNDRA M. SHRSVASTAVA, J. Misc ADpeal (C.) No. 1445 of 2009 Appellant Pradeep Chopra, son of Shri Claimant Mooichand Chopra (Jain), aged 35 years, resident of Mararpara, Ward No.2, Baiod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) RespQndents Non-appllcants Versus 1. Sriram @ Shankar Lai Sahu, son cf Shri Videshi Ram Sahu, agsd 27 years, resjdent of Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.2, Baiod, Tahsi! Balod, District Durg (C.G.). (Driver of Motorcycle Hero Honda number CG-07-F-9659). 2. Daya Shankar Pavariya @. Meshram, son of Shri Biraju Ram, aged 51 years, Dressor, Veterinary Department, Balod, Resident of Nayapara, Balod, Tahsii Baiod, District Durg (CG) (Owner of the vehicie number CG-07-F-9659). IVIisceiianeous appeal under Section 173 ofthe iVlotor Vehicie Act Present : Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (10tn December, 2008) The fotiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Indrasen Sahu, tearned counsel for the appeliant is heard on admisslon. € a^.W^i^^ l^- 2) Appellant Pradeep Chopra is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg, (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 30.07.2009 passed in Claim Case No.74/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.^7,95,000/-, claimed by the appeiiant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor VehicSes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.83,041/- as compensatlon aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri indrasen Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeilant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.83,041/- only, though the appellanVdaimant sustained multipie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 5) Before the Tribunai the appellant / ciaimant examined two witnesses inciuding himseif (AW/1 Pradeep Chopra and AW/2 Vinod Jain), in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the appeliant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the imuries said to have been sustalned by the appellant/daimant in the motor acddent and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 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 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 - daimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the dlsability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed qross error in overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basisofthe deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aliow 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." 7) 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 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 11 : ./. ^^.p^, ./^^::'\. 1 v^- '^ (^ < "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civll Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certjficate was issued two years after the accident took pjace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess 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 Trlbunal 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 oplnion, 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 of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appeilanVcialmant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. ^---ni—.&fe&.^a^ ^ "^- r ^^ i< •^,^,:.^- "v/1 -^-^:.^' 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge subbu