^.p.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.'ViSSON BENCH CORAM: HON?BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! SUNSL KUMAR SSNKA, J. ADpelSant Respondents ^N>-' Misc. ADpeai No. 324 of 2006 Bharatla! Gehanj, S/o. Ghuman Das Jehanl, aged about 27 years, R/o. hv!ata Devaiay Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, Dlstrict - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 Kamlesh Das JVIanikpuri, aged about 35 years, S/o. Bhakia SVIanlkpuri (Driver) R/o. Mahaveer VVard, Bhatapara, Tahsi! Bhatapara, Dlstt. - Ralpur (C.G.) 2 Jitendra Ksur, aged about 42 years, W/o. Manjest SIngh Rana, (Owner of Truck) R/o. Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, TahsiE Bhatapara, Distrlct Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Oriental insurance Company Llmlted, Ralpur, Kachhari Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.< (C.G.) MlsceJlaneous Sectlon 173 ofthe Moior Act. Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vlkram Dixit, iearned oounsel for the appeSSant. None for respondent N o.1 though served. Ms. Mourisha Chhatri, learned counse! for respondent No.2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, iearned counsei for respondent No.3. The foiiowing order of the Court wss passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeitant Bharatiai Gehani is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, Raipur (for short, "the Tribunai") vlde award dated 07.02.2006, passed in Ciaim Case No.45/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,62,000/-, claimed by the appeiiant / claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.01 .2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,25,384/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitjon tiil the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsei for the appeltant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,25,384/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. Learned counsei further submitted that the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant/ ciaimant in the motor accident resulted in permanent disability to the extent of50%. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs.1,25,384/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^ |»N<F 5) Ms. Mourisha Chhatri, learned counse! for respondent No.2 also supported the award. 6) From the records, we gather that the aDpetlant though examined as many as four witnesses including himself in support of hls claim, but no doctor was examined before the Tribunai for estabiishing thenature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeiiant/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 Tribunai w'rthout examining the Doctor who Issued the certlflcate can be reiled 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 - 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 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunat for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabititv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The INK^- h<^1 Hioh Court erred in disturblna the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is atlowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already 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 (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. 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 appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was Jssued two years after the accident took place is not Rnown. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act • or otherwise Is not known. It is atso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. St even does'not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The TribunaE as also 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 applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in l^ our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 9) In view of theabove quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medicai certificate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appellant/ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeat filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge nimmi