%til?^gl%ii^gilSSJJSSSBS@StgW%^ ADDelssnt Ciaimant OF AT CJ. HON'BLE CHANDRAKARJ. Mlsc. (C) No. 786 of 2010 Mehi Lal, Son of Prem Sai, aged about 28 years, Caste - Kanwar, Occupatlon - Agriculturist & business, R/o Viliage Kusmushi, Chowki Busdai, PS & Tahsil - Surajpur, district Surguga (CG) Non-appiicants Punamchandra @ Mannu, Son of Mahabir Prasad Goyai, aged 27 years, R/o Viilage Bhaiyathan @ JhJlmili, Tahsll Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) (Drivsr & Owner) The New india insurance Company Limited, Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office, Satimudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Rasgarh (CG) (Insurer) |s^e!!aneoys_aDDea!,ynder_Sect|on,J7_3 ofthe.Motor 2. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsei for the appeiiant. (4th The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellant are heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in fiiing the appeai. •v^ 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeliant and the grounds taken in the app!ication, we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded In showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. 3) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal Is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counse! for the appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appeilant ~ Mehi La! is seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the First Additlonal Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal; Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06-02-2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.03/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the appeJlant/c.laimant by filing a claim petition under Sectlon 1 66 of the Motor Vehides Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 10-02-2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation along with lump-sum amount of interestofRs.1,500/-. 7) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia and Shri Atanu Ghosh, iearned counsel for the appellant yehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.12,000/- only, though the appeilant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined hlmself alone as AW/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appeiiant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to establish the nature of the injuries sald to have been sustalned by him sn the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal wlthout examlning the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatlon came up for c-onsideration before the Apex Court In the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed In para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counse! for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatlon for the High Court to rely on the disabi!ity certificate Issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hioh Court committed aross error in overlookinQ the fact that DT.Sydhakar Redd^^^^^ certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determlned the phvsicai disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the depositjon^f DL KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fajr compensatlon. The Hjgh Court erred in disturbina th_e same an.d enhandng the compensation. Consequentiy, we ailow this appea!, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribuna!. The ^^1^^. ^sGy'"*, '"•••-? A'^- ^ ^^^ "^^-' \::— respondent-ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a rec-ent dlctum in the case of Rajesh Kumar Raju v. Yudhvir Siragh and another, reported in 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the foilowing 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 hospitai treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certiflcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t Is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. !t even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention havlng been raised in regard to the apDiicabi!ity of the VA/orkmen's Compensation Act which; in our opinion, ex facle has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 11) !n vlew of the above quoted dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v, P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and v. Yudhvlr Singh another (Supra), the •!',^€sas%. y:...^.1'-. ''^. ,i ^^. ^: ^ medica! certificates produced bythe appellant/cialmant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor 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 seope for enhancement of the compensatlon 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 nimmi