^ \^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Mjsc. Appeal (C) No. 1137 of2007 Appellant K.V. Rao, S/o. Shri K.S. Narayan, aged about 38 years, R/o C/o Rajesh Naidu, Mohan Bada, Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents VERSUS Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Harbhajan Singh, r/o Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) Manthan Lai, S/o Bhagan Lal, R/o C/o Mahendra Travels, Pandri, district Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) The Oriental Insurance company Ltd., Branch Office No. 1, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) {IVIiscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehidesAct.1988) Present: Shri Anup Majumdar and Shri Basant Dewangan, learned counsei for the appellant. Shri Ajay Mjshra, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (15tnJuSy,2010) The foltowrng order of the Court was passedyby -,. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ' ^ .^1'"' Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No. 01/2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel 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) I.A. No. 01/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Anup Majumdar and Shri Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appellant - K.V. Rao is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29-03-2007, passed in Claim Case No.12/2005. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.28,59,800/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03-03-2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- 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 Anup Majumdar and Shri Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.70,000/- only, though INNMB the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himseif alone as AW/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the 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- 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 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 rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examination pf that doctpL The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the cleDQSltion pt Dr, K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, ^^"i we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, 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 and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same viewwith 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 the hospital 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. 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 contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinipn, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 11) In 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 aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those 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 by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- diief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma