HEGH COURT OF CHHA?T§$GARH AT BELASPR£R D§W$HON BENCH i gQRAM: Appeliant Ciaimant ‘7- HGN’BLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA, C‘J. & HGN’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, ..,§. MA. N9. 1§% at” 2GG4 Ranti Bai, wife of Jagmohan Sahu, aged about 40 years, occupation agriculture and hcuse wife vinage Kailashpun Felice Stgtign Ramanu}nagar,‘ Tahsil Surajpur, Di$tt4 SSurguja (CG) VER$USg 1. Shivnath Sahu @ Nanku SIC Bhuwali Sahu, aged about 35 years: occupation: Service (3.E.C.L.) Pandopara, R/o Viilage, Kalyanpur, Police and Tahsit Surajpur, Distt. Surguja(CG) (Driven Ram Prakash Sahu, S/o Heeraia! Sahu, aged about 38 yeam, Occupa€iion service (SECL), Pandepaa, R/o Viuage Kaiyanp’ur, P.S‘ & Tahsi! Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) (Owner) The United Endia Ensarance Co. Ltd. through the Branch Manager, Branch Office near Ram Mandir Rcadj Ambikepur, $urguja (CG} (insurer) Aimee: alS 173 af me Meter Vehiclee Act. 1988 for erahancement of the award Shri Atanu Ghosh, couhse! fer the appeliam. Shri AK. Prasad! ceunsei for respendent No.1. None for respondent No.2 though served. V an” Okv: hsni‘unl- uaatucuh f‘..anlu~ uupm, uO‘LinSGi A p. f0? w§§Gnuem van “A ¢ wG‘o. BI ’3 Reepondenée: Non-appucants R) GRBER {25th a? R; mm 2mm ‘ q The foHawing 'ordw ef the Cam was passed by Rw @wia, i3“; a‘e Appellant - Ranii Bai is seeking enhancement of the cainn$ation awarded by 15* Additicnal Motor Accident Claims Tri‘qn, $ura§pur (for shért ‘the Tribuna!’) vide award dated ’ 27? 1 .2903, passed in Ciaim‘ Case N0.150f2002, .: a aeianf/oaaimant by Vilma a cialm petltmn under oestmn 156 me poi e Mor Vehmes Act far the injuries sustained by her an the m {m dt mr acent en 27.122001, the Trmunal awardea a tetai sum ow cxd f Rs.55,000/~ as compensation along wilh interest @ ?% per aum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of al pi ant 3:1. l Atanu Ghosh, learned counsei for the appeiiant f Snn vhementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low penstion of Rs.55xGOO/- oniy though the appellant/element sstained muitlple'serious injuries including fractures in the motor u aoident resulting in permanent disabiiity. t}? o other hand opported the award and contended that the - bunai nae been quite liberal in awarding substantiai amount of R.55,000f- as compensation to the ciaimant though the ciaimant e oul not estabiish any permanent disabiiity. ..-a .} 2) s againsi—Ehe commensation of R$.3.60.0DO/- ciaimed bv r~ d Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, l ri the tri l TM’f’T‘A f ‘ :W‘ W eier WWW" w i e WV :V e e "ww—wmi «mamawa Magma,“ i +pe Lai \ 9 ; nh ctua ay e coma od / w 9; 5 Shri AK. Prasw, learnec} counsa£ fer respandent NM alga ‘Lsppozted the §K¢vard 6;) Before the Tribunai, i‘ne c§aimant exammed as many as fpur wiimewss Le. A.W.1-R&nti Bai, A.W.2~Ram Prasad, AW 8- a’gamanand Sahu and AW 4-Jagmohan, in suppart of her daim. For ihe reasens best known i0 tha appeiiantlciaimant, m3 dcctor ‘w‘és: examineé before the Trébunal to e$tablish the nature cf the iinjuries said to mve been sustas‘ned by the éppeitam/ daimant in the motor acoidgnt and ihe fact that those injuries resuited in any peimanem disabiiityi T?) The question whether 'ihe medical certificate produced by i i i ‘ s I \ \ ) ; l ‘ . i‘ne ciaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor Who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for poneideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTC v. P Ehirupat Recidy, reported in (watt) ’32 $CC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : ”6. After hearing teamed counsei for the respondent— ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the. High Court‘ we find that there was no iustification for the High Court to rety' on the dieahiiity certificate issued toy Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by ‘ treating the injurywas permanent disability to be 45 per' cent. The High Court committed dross error in overlookind the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non— examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined 1 the ghysicai disabiiity at i5 ger cent on the basis or the l %’ e “we: e‘gcsit'xon o? Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a iust aHd fair ! 3 campensation. . The High Court erred in d§sturbingethe we auaw *ihis appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent—ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of Compenaa’cien awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” i same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentky; \ 1 The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raiesh :Kamar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Singh and‘another, reported in lizitw) ? SCC. 30$, reiterated the same View with the foiiowing i § l l observations in para ii : i “ii. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after 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 ceniticate had not been examined. Uniess 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. tt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal 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 appiication, the same, in i i , d Ux\ , our epinion, cannot be pefmitted to be raised for the first time.” 9 in View 0§ the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the [see of AP, $RTC v. P, Thirupai Ready (Supra) and Raj'esh C Kumar aiias Raga: v. Yudhvir Singh am another (Suma), ihe T ed§cal ceifificates produced by the appeHant/ciaimant before the I nl._.._‘__e :x« ion-nail Without examiniffg the Doctore who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of theecompensatiora in the caee. m) We, therefore,do not find any scope for enhancement of i the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. i 11) The appeal filed by the appeiiant/claimant for enhancement of the oompeneation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. i 1?} No order as to costs. T ‘ r Sdl- .ef Jusu.ce,§ it