:S^"!- ,^a /r y •aaa s$ V Appeltant Claimant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Mtsc. Aopeal (Cl No. 884 of 2010 Master Shubham Singh, S/o. Vimal Singh, aged about 5 years, through legal guardian mother Smt. Reena Singh, w/o Shri Vimal Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Police Station bagauiyau, Poiice Station Daudpur, district Chhapra (Bihar), at present Ring Road, Baico Nagar, Korba, Tahsi!,& District Korba (C.G.) Versus 1. Jagla! Yadav, S/o Laxmi Yadav, R/o Titira, Post Tarai District Ajamgarh 2. Jayshanker Pandey, S/o Shri Patat Pandey, R/o Plot No. 98, \^dhvasini Nagar Colony, Aurdali Bazar, Varanasi (U.P.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, address-C,21/88-A-1, Shanti Market, Laghaubir, Varanasi (U.P.) through the Branch Manager. Respondents Memorandum ofappeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1S88 Present: Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeliant. ORDER >th (28mAugust,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. N "K s Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsei for the appellant is heard on I.A.No.01/2010, a petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideratton of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellant and the grounds teken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant/claimant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay In filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admisston. 5) Appellant/ Claimant Master Shubham Singh has filed this appeal through hfs guardian/mother Smt. Reena Singh for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 30.11.2009, passed in Ctaim Case No.05/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- claimKt by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.04.2007, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimant along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. v' 7) Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, teamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunaf has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only though the appetlant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) For the reasons best known to the claimant and his mother, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to ^ablish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medicat 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. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed coLmsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcatlon for the High Court torely on the disability certiffcate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatton by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in o^verlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certjficate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examinatjon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvstcal disabititv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comeensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensatlon. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunat. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to wlthdraw 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 an<rther, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, retterated the same view with ttie following observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two yeare. 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 sajd certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibte in evidence. Whether the disabitity 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 Tribunat or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record bythe parties. In ateence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabttity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in ^s^ 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. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates; cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeai fited by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice R.N.Ghandrakai- Judse ^subbu