Divtsio" Beneh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Ct N0. ^ 5 D_ /2011 (D.B.l APPELLANT CLAIMANT ,</•^^ \^ •:s^'" ^^' ^^ ,..Q^>--^,^- ..-•;,,c,^ ^^w:^<z-' f< VERSUS \r RESPONDENTS Set Ram Rathore, S/o Shiv Prasad Rathore, aged about 38 years, R/o Purani Basti, Korba, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C.G.) DEFENDANTS : 1. Sageer Ahmad, S/o Bashir ' Ahmad, aged about 52 years, R/o Ali Ahmad Gairol, Near t Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. -Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service, Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Divisional Manager, The New Insurance Company Limited, Division office, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) MISCBLLANEOUS APPBAL U/S 173 OF THEMOTOR VBHICLE ACT. HiGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C|No. 650 of 2011 APPELLANT Set Ram Rathore CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Versys Sageer Ahmad & others Mssceiianeous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehidesAct.1988 D.B: Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.K.Aaarwal & Hon'ble SVIr. Justice R.N.Chandrakar Present : Shri Dhirendra Mishra, counsei for the appeliant Per N.K. Aaarwal. J ORDER (24.06.2011) Heard on I.A. No.1/2011 which is'^n application for condonation of delay in filing the appeai. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiant is succeeded in expiaining the cause of deiay in fiiing the appeal and, therefore, the applicatton {I.A. No.1/2011) is aiiowed. Delay in the filing the a^peai is condoned, 3. Heard on admission. 4. instant petition has been filed bythe appellant/claimant seeklng enhancement of the compensation in the award dated 4.1.2011 passed by llnd Additiona! Motor'Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Korba ( for short 'the Tribunal') in CIaim Case No.92/2008 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribuna! forthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 5. As against the compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- ciaimed by the appeliant by filing appiteation under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 10.3.2006 by bus bearing registration No. C.G. 11A/4113, learned Tribuna! has awarded compensatlon pf Rs.30,000/-a!ong with interest application till its payment. 6 % per annum from the date of 6. Learned Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus No. C.G. 11A/4113; the respondent No.S/lnsurance Company is liable for payment of compensation as respondent No.S/lnsurance Company failed to prove vioiation of policy conditions; awarded aforesaid amount of compensation to the appeilant/claimant against the respondents. 7. Shri Dhirendra Mishra, iearned counset appearing for the 'appeflant would submit: although the appellant has not examined the doctorto prove the injuries sustained by hrm in the accident, however, the iearned Tribunal has falien in error in awarding iow amount of compensation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material availabte on record includingimpygned award. 9. For the reasons best known to the appeilant, the appellant did not examine the doctor who treated him to prove the injuries sustained by him, disability if any sustained and the resultant !oss. 10. The questjon whether the medicalcertificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribuna! withoutexamining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon assubstantive 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- ciaimantwho made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that therewas no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disabiiity certificate jssued by Dr. SudhakarReddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the factthat Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medtoa! certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non- examinatlonof that doctor. The Tribuna! has determined the phvsjcai disabilitv at 15 percent on the basis ofthe deDOsition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and c farecomDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbinci the same and enhandna the comDensation. Consequentiy, we ailow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the CIaims Tribunat. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 11. The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate v^as issued two years afterthe accident took p!ace is not known. The author of the said certlficate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissib'ie in evldence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provislons of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise js not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. !t even does not appearthatthe.contentionsraised before us had either been raised before the TribunaJ or the High Court. The Tribuna! as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiicatlon, the same, in ouropinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 12. 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 alias Raju v. Yudhvjr Singh and another (Supra), the certificate producea' before the Tribunai in the absence of exannination of the Doctor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. ^iar8%^ &, .^€;: 4 •^ llic: 14 The appeai filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. . Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge