^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & 1 Naamohan S/o late Harishankar Kurre Aged about 10 years. 2 Smt. Puni Bai Wd/o Iste Harishankar Kurre Aged about 34 years. Mother Guardian for minor son Nsamohan both residents of Jamgahan, Post Office Mukta, Tahsil and Police Statlon - Malkharoda, Distt Janjgir Champa (CG) At present resident of Kirodima! Nagsr, Raigarh Tah & Distt Raigarh 1 Smt Manjushri Chatterjee W/o Shri Gautam Chatterjee, R/o Konkar Rachi, Distt Rachi (Jharkhand ) (Owner ofthe offending Bus) 2 Santosh Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad Occupation - Driver R/o Ssctor -I, near tempie, Dhuwal, Rachi, Distt - Rachi (Jharkhand) at present resident of Jagannathpur, Distt Saraikela, Kharsawa (Jharkhand) (Driver of offending Bus) 3 The, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through : Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Ltd., itwari Bazar, Raigarh (CG) {Insurance Company) 4 Sujeet Kumar Dutta, S/o Sadanand Dutta R/o Village Ghauliyabasa, Post Offlce - Chauka, Distt Saraikela, Kharsawa (Jharkhand) (Ovi/ner of the a '<? The Oriental insurance Company Ltd Through Braneh - Jamshedpur and through - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., iranch Itvi/ari Bazar Raigarh, Raigarh (CG) Shri N.K. Chatterjee, counsei forthe appeliants. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondents No.3 and5. th The following order of the Court was passed ies are heard on Learned counsel for the I.A.No.01/2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due conslderation of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A.No.01/2007, therefore, is ailowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appeliants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents ClaimsJ'ribynal Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.12.2006, passed in claim case No. 51/2006. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- claimed by appellanU claimant Nagmohan, a minor boy aged about 10 years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 or the Motor Vehicies Act through his mother Smt. Puni Bai, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.01.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.24,000/- as compensation a'ong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 7. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counset for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.24,000/- oniy though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures resulting in permanent disability. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellants/ claimants no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabtish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by appeltanV claimant Nagmohan in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabillty. 9. The question whetherthe medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining 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 v. T-I '^«, '"^3®-^ y 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 of the 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 High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected the_^Tribynal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis ofjhe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensatlon. The Hiflh Court erred in_disturbin,g the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw ths amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, 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 Civi! 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 the certiflcate examined himseff. 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 raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also 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 auoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thsrupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellants/claimants before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 13) The appeal fited by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed andjs hereby disrnissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Cbandrakar Judge '-f€, /• / J