!&1^ 5 \-'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRi RAJI HON'BLE SHR! SUNSL , C.J. i!NHA, J. .fN^SA»*nrf*n»»* •irf'IOili Misc. Appeal No. 465 of 2006 Govind Nirmalkar, S/o Bhai NirmalKar, Aged about 50 years, R/o Viiiage - Tulsi, P.0. Mandir Hasaud, Thana Mandir Kassud, Tahsil and District RaiDur (C.G.) 1 Ramlal Yadav, S/o Bhimsen Yadav, C/o Msnager, Ekta Institute of ChiSd Heai'th, Shanti Nagar, ftaipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicie bearing registration NO.C.G.04ZD9258) 2 Ekta tnstitute of Chitd Health. Through Manager, Shantl Nagsr, Raipur, Tahsii and Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) (Registered Owner of Vehicle bearins registrsSion No. C.G. 04 ZD 9258) 3. United tndia Insurance Company Limlted, Through its Divisional Manager, United India tnsurance Co. Ltd. Kutchery' Chowk, Jall Road, Ralpur (C.G.) (Insurer of VehicSe bearing registration NO.C.G.04ZD9258) 19S8 Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeilant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Vlvek Chopra, iearned counse! for respondent No.2. Shri Dashratn Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ^^^. A ~l!*>fe. 1 "??^^ j : -•;-, ^,^/ 2 @ (28th Ju!y, 2009) TFhe foliowing order of the Court was passed by Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 569/2006, a petiiion for condonation of the delay in filing the 2) On due consideration of the submlsslons of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petltion, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufflcient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P. No. 569/2006, therefore, is aliowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsei for the appellant is heard on admisslon. 5) Appellant Govtnd Nirmalkar, is seeking enhancement of the compensatio" awarded by the 14 A.dditiona! Motor Acc-idents Claims Tribunal, Ralpur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 28.02.2005, passed in Claim Case No.40/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.11,42,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3 7) Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustalnsd multlple serious injuries in the motor accident and Shose injuries resuited in permanent disability. 8) Fo.r the reasons best known to the appeliant/ctaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellsnt/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabtlity. 9) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantlve evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thlrupal Reddy reported in (20QS) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - ctaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiftcation 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 Hiqh Court committed gross 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 physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the cieposition 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 ailow this appeat, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-cSaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same ^iew with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after fwo years. It is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeitant. 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. 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. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been ralsed before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiats 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." 11) In view of the above quoted cffcfa 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 medicai certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. ' 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Trlbunal. 13) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- S^,/. "" SunilKumarSinha ChiefJustice Judge nimmi