" %s(S E? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHAKDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No.999 of 2011 Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-claimants Bheem Sahu, s/o Ghanaram Sahu, aged about 22 years, r/o Jorapara, near Brahamdev Mandir, police station Azad Chowk, tahsil and district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Jagjeet Singh s/o late Harvansh Singh, r/o new Khursipar, Kapda market, beside Sindhi Dharamshala, bhilai, police station, new Khursipar, bhilai, tahsi! & district Durg C.G. Employment/ working address through Nitin Thakur, s/o Shri Shiv Kumar Thakur, material supplier, r/o J/2002, Tilak Nagar, in front of water Tank, Gudhiyari, police station Gudhiyari, tahsil and district Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicle Truck-Tipper, bearing registration No.C.G./04/J/ 3188) Nitin Thakur, s/o Shri Shiv Kumar Thakur, material supplier, r/o J/2002, Tilak Nagar, in front of Water Tank, Gudhiyari,:police station Gudhiyari, tahsil and district Raipur C.G. (registered owner of vehicle Truck- tipper, bearing registration NO.C.G./04/J/3188) The Branch Manager, the Reliance General Ins'jrance Company limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, shopNo. 412/413, 4th floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, tahsil & district Raipur C.G. ^. "/ SSfisP'% 'aaaAi5' M—BUfcf^^ AC.No. 999 of 2011 (insurer of vehicle Truck- Tipper, bearing registration No.C.G./04/J/ 3188) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehLcle_Act Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel fofthe appellant. ORDER >th (28mSeptember,2011) The follbwing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonationof the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admis^ion. 5) The appellant/ claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by tl^e 7 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.09.2010, passed in Claim Case No.86/2008. 6) As agajnst the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 y .'••'. I: s ft feu tn Haa ( Httfldiit)#gtc? t fla pTJ li. u B i _»;Kk;-A±; .sSSS» V ,y -v.^S'' MAC.No. 999 of 2011 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09-06-2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.17,801/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensationof Rs.17,801/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 10%. 8) From para 14 of the impugned award we gather that the claimant though filed a disability certificate before the Tribunal, the doctor who had issued the said certificate was not examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabitity. 9) The question whether the 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. 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 attempl: to support the order of the :;'!.r,i.:-j:-M- Q ( ; ( MAC.No. 999 of 2011 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 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross 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 phvsical disabilitv at 15per cent on the basis of the deBositionof Dr. K.M. Mitra'and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow 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 (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 appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place isjiot known. The author of the said certificate had not beea examined. Unless the <*fr 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 whettier he was competent to MAC.No. 999 of 2011 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 also the High Court, therefore, proi?eeded 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) The medical certificates and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, 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), 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 appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu