A°' <A' s^ \<'. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 229 of 2006 Monu @ Pawan Sharma Aged about 26 years S/o. Maheshchand Sharma R/o Mohalla Naya Sarkanda Bangalipara, Bilaspur, Tah. & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ADpellant Claimant 1 Pramod Kumar Dixit S/o. Devi Prasad Non-applicants. Dixit Aged abaut 33 years, R/o. Bhimpuri, Junapara, P.S. Takhatpur Dist. Bitaspur (C.G.) 2 Pratikchand Verma S/o. Prabhatchand Verma R/o. Godpara, Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwaii, Biiaspur, Tahsii and Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager Branch- Office, Rajendranagar Bilaspur (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicies Act, 198S Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, iearned counsel for the appellant. (16th Ju!y, 2009) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on M.C.P.No.268/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in fiiing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appellant and the grounds taken in the petition, n s'ssss \'^ we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fi'ing the appeat. 3) M.C.P.No.268/2006, therefore, is allowed and the detay of 4 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Rakesh Sahu,. learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appeilant/ciaimant Monu @ Pawan Sharma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2005, passed in Claim CaseNo. 175/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- claimed by theappellant/ claimant byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,24,645/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dateof actual payment. 7) Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.1,24,645/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious 'nature ofthe injuries sustained bythe appellant/ claimant in the motor accident. 8) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the .-<lk?T^''~-. 2.' \'\ appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether fhe 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 v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: ; "6. After hearing leamed 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 disabitity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv 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 enhancing the compensation. Consequent!y, we ailow 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." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in /•^ESiit^ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foilowing observations in para 11: "11. The certiflcate 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 certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of_ thecertificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the; disability at 60% was calcutated 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 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 application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 11) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunat witHout examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the comDensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. -—- Sd/- Ouef Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu