e'? pp Q '"^" 1' '\/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants. Misc. Appeal No.18Sof2004 Smt. Geeta Doyle, W/o Late Sivram Singh, Doyle, aged 58 yrs., R/o R.D.A. Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tah.S Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1 Shankar Khapede, S/o Vasudev Khapede, 33 years, Truck Tanker Driver, R/o Dally Rajhara, Distt. Durg 2 Arun Kumar S/o Ramraj Upadhyaya, R/o Main Road, Dally Rajhara, Distt. Durg(C.G.). 3 United India Insurance Com.Ltd., Branch Office, Rajmal Complex, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Through Divjstonal Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Tah& Distt. Raipur (C.G.). AppeaLynder Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri S.G. Verma, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (16th July, 2009) s T-hef following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on M.C.P.No.926/2005, a petition for condonation of the delay in filiria theaDpeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeltant and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No.926/2005, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/claimant Smt. Geeta Doyle is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.07.2003, passed in Claim Case No.151/2002. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,58,860/- claimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 30.11 .2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment: •> / 7) Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple seriousinjuries including fractures in the motor accndeht. •^ 8) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the 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 Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can tie relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration beforethe 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 6as 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 justirication for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddyand enhancethe compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Miah Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunat for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined ths,<physical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore. the award of the Cfaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadv been withdrawn." ^ 10) The Apex Courtjn 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 wtth 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 is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the aythor of the certiflcate 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 whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentlons 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 whlch, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinipn, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first tjmp." 11) In view of the abaye quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. ThirupalReddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced bythe appellant/claimant beforethe Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those .^1^3 certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of thecompensation 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/- Chief Justice 'b^. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu I—