..T> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVLSIONBENCH CQJRAM: Appellant HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 927 of 2006. Raju @ Sheshnarayan, 16 years, S/o Lalit Baghel, minor through father and natural guardian Lalit Baghel, S/o Banshiram,47 years, R/o Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, dist. Bastar(C.G.) Respondents VERSUS Harishchandra 'Sethiya, 30 years, S/o Sonsingh Sethiya, R/o Naya Munda Para, Tiranga Chowk Jagdalpur, distt. Bastar (C.G.). Jethuram Sethiya, 'S/o Sonsingh Sethiya, R/o Akash Nagar, Dongripara, Jagdaipur, dist. Bastar (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) IVIisceilanebus aQpeai underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER fcth (19mAugust,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. t. ^' ^ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No. 1283/2006, a petition for condonation of delay jn filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the parties 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) MCP No.1283/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay of three days in filing the appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel forthe appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appellant Raju @ Sheshnarayan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdglpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.69/2005. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.06.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.58,483/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment on the insurer's failure to pay compensation within two months from the date 6f passing of the award. 7) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low CQmpensation of Rs.58,483/- oniy. % 8) For the reasons best known to the appellanV ctaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained bythe 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 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- ciaimant 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 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 Tribuna! has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDQsition of 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 ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." ^ 'l.. 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias 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 towhether the Civjl Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issuedtwo 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 ofthe 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 Tribuna! as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. Inabsence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 11) ln 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 aSias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had jssued those {^s^^ 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 bythe Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellant/ ciaimant for enhancement of the comperisation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. i Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge