1‘ FgEGH CGUR’? GF CHRATTEgGARH AT B!LA$?UR WVESION EENCR 1 CQRAM HGWBLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. ‘ H$N’BLE HR} MANENERA M. SHRNA$TAVA, .L .. .. . Wm: mint-mi Na.’i31£ Qf 20% i l imwiéam Paramjeet Kaur, w/o $hri Kama§jeet Cia‘iman‘t Smgh, aged abou€ 30 years, {es'ident of . Near Kai? Mata Mandir, Shyam Nagar, a 4* Raipur VERgUS Resnondems 1. Vijay Kumar, son of Shré Ram Abhiiash Nan-appiicants Dubey, age§ abaut 36 years, Driver, resident 0f Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari, Ra§pur 2. Rag Bahedur Mishra, wife of Satyanarayan Mishra; aged abcut 5O yems, resident of near Waltaire Raiiway Crossing, Fafadih, Raipur 3. The New lndia insurance Company Pvt Hid, Waugh Branch No.1 — Diviséenar Manager, Raipur 4. V Krishna Rae, son cf Snri Suryanarayan Rao, Driver, aged abs-at 26 years, residenr of Police Station Sasu, Districr Vijag? Hagar, Andhra Praoesn presently through Mohd Nasir Qureshi, son of Mohd Gani Qureshi, Abduiia goods Transport, Moudhapara, Raihur S. Mohd Nasir Qureshi, son of Mohd Gani Qureshi, Abduiia goods Transport, Moudhapara, Raipur '6. National insurance Company Pvt Ltd, through the Divisional Cffioe, GE Road, Raipur 7. ECI—i Rain, son of Shri BA Raiu, Kripa Transport, Patei Cornniex, Ring Road, Raiour Mi§cai§aneaus Mmeai un¢ef $ect'i0n 1?3 of M‘atcr ‘u’ehicge Ac§, 1&8 Present : ShriVivek Chopm, counsel forthe appellant. Shrl Saurabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3! The New lndia lnsurance Company Pvt Limited OREER gel“ December, 29w; 'V ‘ The fellowing older of the Court was paseed by Reieev Gama, CJ. Lealned counsel for lhe partles are heard on lVlQP l\lol’l7QD/2005, a petition for cendonatien of the delay in lliing the aepeal 2i (3n due considel'ation of the submissions of learned counsel for lne parties and the gtounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the/ appellantfclaimant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, 3) MCP No.17QC/2UG5, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 83 day‘s in tiling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Viirek Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant ls heard on admission. 5) Appellant Paramieet Kaur is seeking enhanoement of the compensation awarded by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratpur (for short, the Tribunal) vide award dated 28D620§5 passed in. Claim Case No.32l2064. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.3,6G,GGGI-, claimed by the apoeliant/claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of %x_ the Mater Vehicies Act fOf the injuries sustained by her §n the motor éccidem on 07042001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,§OO/- as compensation aiong with interest @ Q% pei annum from the date of filing of the oiaim petition, tiii the date of actual nayment. Z7) Shri Vivek Chopi'a, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low “F . compensation of Rs.1G,GGU/— only, though the appellanticlaimaht sustained muittple serious iniuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8') Before the Tribunal, though the claimant examined herself as A'Wit' in support of her claim, for the reasons best known to her, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries satd to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant tn the motor accident and the fact that those injuriesJesulted in any oermanent disability. Q) 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 ARSRTC Vs P. Thimpat Raddy reported in (2&05} 12 SCC 18s, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : nw “6. After nearing iearned counsel for the respondent — claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that A there was no justification for the High Court ta rely on the disabili’iy certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Ready and enhance the compensaiion by treating‘ the iniury as permanent disabi‘iity to be 45 nercent, The High Cam committed arose error in overiookino the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddvis medinai certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non-examination of rhar doctor. The Tribunai has determined :rhe Qhvsicai disabiiitv at 1'5 ner cent onihe basis of the deoosition of Dr KM Mitre and awarded a iust and fair comoensation. The L High Sourt erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the oomgensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ctaims Tribunai. The respondent—ciaimant is ailowe'd to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not aiready been withdrawn.” 1G) ”The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumat aiias Raid Vs Yudhvir Sing'h and another, reported in {2%03} 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the foiiowing observations in para ii : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeitant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took oiace is “not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 63% was caicuiated on the basis of the ms /”“\ 2% ‘ provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act $ or otherwise is not known. it is aiso not known as to whether he was comoetent to issue such a certificate. it even does not apnea? that the contentions {aised before us had either been raised before the Tribune! or the High Court. The Tribune! as aiso the High Court. therefore. oroceedeo on the materiats brought on record bv the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabitity of the Workmen’s Comeensation Act which. in our L opinion, ex facie has no apptioation, the same, in our-opinion. cannot be nermitted to be raised for the first time." i1) in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupai Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and. another (supra). the medicai i certthcate produced by the appeiiant/ctaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. we. 12} We. therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeai, filed by the appeiiant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore. is iiabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summariiv _ ’ Sd/- Sd/- Manindfa Mohan Shrivastava CHIEF JUSTICE Judge padma