^ 'M: HIOMCOURT'QFCWHA'F^ISGARHA'TBIL.ASPUR DIViSIONBENCH CORAM: HC?N'BLESHR^RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HOM'BI-ESHR|RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. ADDellant Applicant ResDOndents Non-applicants Syiisc.ADpeal N6.109 of2Q@6 .S'"':''1" .•,' 'Y' .' .' ' ^ :' • ' 1'-;. • '; '• Paramjeet^S(ngh,jaged 30 ^ Shri Aj^ Sing^, r/p ShivnagaF, Takhatpur, Distt-jBilaspurCG .1 VERSUS 1 j.:. :: ';, •• . -. :•.' , - •'. ! .". -•. 1 JanardanSingh^ Dau,agM^ s/o Shri Chhabi Ram, ryo Gram - Bareia, PS - JSrhagaon, Tah Mungeli,Distt:BUaspurGG •r • . 1;/.1"':''..' •.• •:.':':-.:-' 2 Gurudaya! Singh] Ho^^ Jasveer Sjrigh 1-lQk'a, NearOlct Bus- stand,Ta(<hatpur-DJstt-Bilaspur 3 The Uhited India Insurahce Company LAd,, jThrough^^^^^^^^B Manager, The | United India ^^ InsuranTO Company Ltd.,^ Branch^^^^^- ^Bilaspur Raiendra Nagar, Bilaspur Djstt-BilaspurCG, ;- MisceltaneousADbealu/S 173 ofthelVlotoitVehicle^ct. 1888 Present:ShriAnuragDayalShFjyastava,c6unsel^^^ ,appellant:l',^^;;^:^'.-,':h.-^:;:;^\:;,. ORDER (12th November, 2010) The^ foll<^ing brGler 6f th^ Ra|eev'Gup(a,C.J..\:'l'.: ',::'^;^^ ^ •^' Shri ^urag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel^^ ^ appellant is heard on^^^ M condonatjpnofdelayinfiltngtheappeal. 2) Qn due consideration bf the submissions of learn^ counsel fcr the appellant and the grounjds taken appiicatjon, we are satisfiedthat the appellantjhas sycceeded in showingsufficientGauseforthedeiayinfilJngtfte^^^a^ 3) M.C.P.No.144/2006, there^ filing the appeal is h^rebycondoned. j 4) Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learn^d counsel<for"the appellant isheard on admission.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ r 5) Appellant Paramjeet Singh isseeking enh^ compensatlon awarded b^he AdditionaJ^IVIotorAceidenteiaim Jribunal, BilaspUF (fbr short ^the Tribunal') jvideiawar^ 29.04.20Q5,passedinBlaimGaseNo. 160 of 2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,27,430/- claimed by theappellant/claimantbyfilingaclaimpetitipriunderSection^^l^ oftheMotorVehiclesActfbrthelnjuriessustaJnedby^m^^^ motor accident on 20.02.2004, theTribunalawardedatotalsum of Rs.70,000/- as coinripensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiti^ actual payment, 7) Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeHant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erre^ awardjng low ^ompensation of Rs70,000/- only, thoygh^^ ^ .l,L!U/! ^,^^^^^ appellant/claimant sustained muitiple serious injyries inciuding fractures inthe motoraccidentresultinginperma^ theextentof15%. 8) From para 16 ofthe award.wegather thatthe claimant^fo^^ the reasons best known to him, djd not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establishthe nature ofthe injuriessaidto tiave been sustained by him in the m(rtor accident and the f^ thatthos&injuriesresultedinanypermanentdisability.,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 9) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor wha issyed the certificate can be relied upQn as sUbstantive evidence for the 9ssessment ofthe compensation came up fo^ corisideFationbeforetheApexCQurtinthecaseofA.P.SRTCv. P. Thirupal Re(My, repQrted in (200S) 12 SCC l^ wasdbservedinparaG'a&ynder: "6.^ ^ claimantwhomadeanaM:^ High Court, \Are find that^here was^^^^ri Migh Court te rely on the djsabUity certificate issyed by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treafing the jnjury as;permanent disability to be 45 per cent: The Hiah Court committed aro^ overlookina "the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non- examination ofthatdoctor. The Trihurialjhas determjned the ohvsicai dtsabllitv at 15 percent onithe basjs ofthe deposition ofDr. K.M. l^itra and awar^ed a iust and^t^ comDensation. The Biah Gourt erred in disturbina the 4 €. same and enhancina the compensation. jCpnsequently, we allow thjs appeal, set aside the jmpugn^d prder and restore the award of the Claims TObunal. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed towithdrawthe amountof compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it 'has hot aireadybeenwithdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in arecent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, repbrted in .1- (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in c|uestjon in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Clvi! Surgeon of the hospitat treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certjficate wss issued two yeare afterthe accident took place is not known.j 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 hot known as to whetherhe was competent to issue sych a certificate. It even does not appear thatthe contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunalas also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties.j In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of theWorkmen'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." lli-1;"1; 51 11) lnviewoftheabovequotedd{cte 6f thej Apex Gourt in the cases ofA.P.SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (SupFa) and Rajesh KumaraliasRaju v. YudhvirSingh and another(Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificat6 produced by the appellant/claimant before th? Tribynal without exarninjng the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into considerationforenhaneementofthecompensationinthecase. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of thecompensation awarded by the Tribunal. i 13) The appeaj filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement pf the compensatioh, therefQre, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissedsummarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge