^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1020 of 2011 \'s &: Appellant Claimant Respondent Non-applicant Rikhi Ram Chandrakar, aged about 38 years, s/o Firanta Chandrakar, r/o village Kodwa P.S. & Tahsil Palari, distt. RaipurC.G. VERSUS Mohar Das Navrange, aged about 28 years, s/o Shivcharan Navrange, r/o village Sundri, P.S. & Tahsil Palari, distt. Raipur C.G. Driver & Owner of vehicle No. C.G.- 04CS-5073 Memo of appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. ORDER >th (30mSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is ..* -is^' heard on I.A.No.01/20.11, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel fdr the appellant and the grounds taken in the •f"' MAC.No. 1020 of 2011 v ^ ..:.?' 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 H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) AppellanV claimant Rikhi Ram Chandrakar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal')vide award dated 02.05.2011, passed in Claim Case No.38/201 1. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.9,99,200/- claimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidenton 14.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 19.687/- 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 H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.19,687/- only though the appellanVclaimant . lf^.^ . ^ sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) Before the Tribunalthough the claimant examined as many as three'witnesses including himself (AW-1 Rikhi Ram,AW-2 Radheshyam and AW-3 Kartik Ram) in support of his claim ^s^ BSS MAC.No. 1020 Of 2011 t petition, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the 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- 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 eertificate 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 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation.The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and ehfiancina the comDensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed towithdraw the amount of compe'ftsation awarded by-the Tribunal, if it hasnot already been withdrawn." ~y '% i'.^-.i-'Gy'^ K' ia^J ^ '•^efty^ .^- M.A.C.No.1020 of 2011 y' 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 thehospital 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 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 whether he was competent to issue such a certificate, Iteven doesnot appearthat 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 absehce 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 produced by the 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 ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another ?St£sS& •ry ^ MAC.No. 1020 of 2011 (Supra), cannotbe 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/- ' GhiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge <1*'' r •••-,-i