HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR. J. Appellant Ciaimant Respondents Non-applicants IVIisc. Appeal (C) No.4 of 2010 Bhanupratap Banjare, S/o Sri Kartik Ram Banjare, Aged about 55 years, R/o Vill Negudih, Thana Nawagarh, Dist Janjgir - Champa (CG) VERSUS 1, Reshamial Kurre,S/o Sri Mahatar Ram Gendle; Aged about 28 yeas, R/o Vili Limtra, Matwari Para, (Darrighat) Thana Masturi, Disf Bilaspur 2. Jawahar Lal Gendle S/o Sri Mahattar Ram Geridle, R/oVill Limtra, Matwari Para, (Darrighat) Thana Masturi, Dist Bilaspur 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager Branch Office Korba, Distt Korba (CG) Miscellaneoys aBpeat U/s 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Present: Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, counsel fpr the appellant. ORDER ith (11tn January, 2010) The Toilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for the appeliant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. t^^gSw & 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 syfficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A.No,1/2,Q10, therefore, is allowed andthe deiay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4, Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant - Bhanupratap Banjare is seeking enhaneement of the compensation awarded by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.10/2009. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act forthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.09.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along withinterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiQn till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Vaibhav Governdhan, ieamed counsel for the appettant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multipleserious injuries including fractures in the motor aceident resulting in permanent disability. fainT—n—"—!'— W^s-SSffSSs^^^^^^. p lUnOUJE SLjl MEJp4}!M 0} p9MO||BSllUBlU!B|3-lUSpUOaS9J 8L|1 •IBUnqUl SU11BIO SL|l p PJBME 9^9^391 pue jspjo p3u6ndiui. 341 spise IBS 'iesdde sw MO||B sm 'AnusnbssuoQ 'uonesusdiuoo aq} fiuiouequs pue suues sijt Buiqjn^sip ui pajj9 ynoo 4611-1 si)l 'uoitesusduioo jrej pue isnfe pspjeME pue BJUIAI •i^'>i 'JQ jo uoHisodsp. ai<tp siseq sqi uo luso jsd 91 ie Aijiiqesip icoisAyd 341 p9L«un8^p-s^iT|euTiqui3iS-7opop^^uouoi.ieu^ -uou jo.t leunqyi syi Aq papafsj SBM aieoijiveo IBOipsui s,Appsy jE>|eqpns 'JQ leqi pe^ 341 6u!>|oo|j3AO ui jojjs SSOJG psuiiuuioo ynoo t|ti!H 941 'iuso jsd g^ sq 01 AliiiqBsip lusueu-ied se Ajnfui sy} SUBBSJI Aq uoResusdaioo SL)I aoueiius pue Appsy je>|eqpns '-IQ Aq panssi aysot^ysa Aiijiqesip 941 uo AISJ Q} ynoo yBjH aqt jo^ uoiieoyiisnf OUSBM ajaqt tey} puy BM 'ynoo qoiH sij} ^o jspjo ay^ yoddns 0} }dLU9ne UB apeuu O^M »ueLuie|3 -luapuodssj 341 joj |esunoo. peujeei Buueey jeyv -g,, : jspun se g Bjed ui psAjasqo SE t! URJ94M '681 30S Zl (SOOZ) ui psyodsj 'Appsy |Bdnjii(i-d "A oj.ys "d'V P sseo ®41ui. ynoo xsdv aqi ajo^aq uojiejspisuoo jio^ dn euueo uoiiesusduioo 34} ^o jueusssss? 34} JQ^ souapiAs eMlue^sqns se uodn psiiej aq ueo sieoyiijao SLII penssi OI)M jopoa sqi Suiuiiuexs inoyijM leunqui 94} ejojeq lueujieio aq} Aq paonpojd aieoyiijso jeojpSLU 941 j9i|i9i)M uoiissnb 341 •Q •Aiiiiqesip luaueujjsdAue ui paijnsaj ssyntu! ssoyi ieqi pEj 341 pue luspiooe jotoiu 3i)i ui IUBUIIB|O flueiiedde eqi Aq psureisns usaq BAey 01 pres seynfui 941 p 9jn)eu aqi ijsiiqeissoi |eunqyi 94} sjojaq psuiuuexe sem jopop ou 'iueuiieio flue||adde 34} oi UAAOU)) }saq SUOSESJ ai)} JQJ -g :.<> ^ r- ""s. II 'l compensation awarded by the Tribuna!, 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 ahd another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate-in questlon in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. Onwhat 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 pf 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 eontention having been raised in regard to the appticability of the Workmen's Compensation Aet which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in 'our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised forthe first time." 11. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumaralias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certiflcate produced bythe appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot betaken intoconsideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. ' 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of thecompensation 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 Sd/-. ' R.N.Chandrakar Judge subbu SsK-t^S^kg^.