sS-*- !y'A 1 Irff' ^ ''^^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HOF»'BLESHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. ADpellant Ciaimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Ct No. 894 of 2010 Sanjay Chaturvedani, S/o Ishwar Chaturvedani, aged about 24 years, R/o. Village Khokhli, PS Bhathapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhathaparg, District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Basant Kumar S/o Kanglu Ram Dhruv, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Bangoli, PS Kharora, District Raipur (CG) (Driver of aSieged vehicie Dumper bearing Registration No.CG.07/- 2C/4429) 2. Shyam Nandan, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Nibha, R/o Village Akalwara, District Durg (CG) (Owner of alleged vehicle Dumper bearing Registration NO.CG.07/-ZC/4429) 3. Santosh Verma S/o Shiv Prasad Verma, Aged about 48 years, Vice President of Janpad Panchayat Bhathapara District Raipur (CG) (Registered owner of alleged vehicte Marshal bearing registration NO.CG.04-B/4847) 4 The Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur (CG) (Insurer of Marshal bearing registration No.CG.04- B/4847) Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 ofthe Wlotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counse! for the appeilant. ORDER >th (30mAugdst,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on I.A.No.01/2010, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of teamed counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the apptication, we are satisfied that the appellant has sixx;eeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay In fiting the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appellant Sanjay Chaturvedani is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03 2010, passed in Claim Case No.15/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensatioh to the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awardina low eompensation of sv-^^SS^1^'999?'^, ^ Rs.15,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includlng fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) Before the Tribunal the claimants examined two witnesses including himself (AW1 Sanjay Chaturvedani and AW2 Kedar Verma) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiishthe nature ofthe injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant In the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunat 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 learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order ofthe 1-ligh Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy andjenhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overtookina the fact that Dr. Sudhalcar Reddv's medical certifjcate _was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examjnatjon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phjreical. disabjlity aU5 per cent on the basis of the ff^ ^ deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitraand awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impuQned order and restore the award of the Ctaims 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 (2008) 7 SCC 30S; reiterated the same view with the fotlowing 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 appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate 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 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 kno\wn as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiftoate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Mgh Court. The Tribunal as atso 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 l£ ^^i| our ppinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the flret time." 11) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Gourt 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 certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, 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 bv the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appeltant/clalmant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summanty^ Sd/- Chief Justice nimml Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ua SK