Caram {APPELLAwTJ Ci} EMANT RE$§ONDEN§§S ’i . HEGH CGURT OF CHHATWSGARH AT BILA$PUR EEEV§3HON BENCf‘i EGN§§LE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C.J. & HCN’BLE SHE; Si§NEL KUMAR $ENHA, J. Misc. ifkpma! No.?22 of 2W5 Mano} Nirmaikar, aged about 25 years, S/o. Shr§ indal Nirmakar, resident of Wiage Urkura, Post of Virgam‘x, PS. Khamtarah Dismct Raipw (C.G.) @ersas Om Prakash Singh‘ s/o Shri Ram smgh, resédem cf behmd Oid Bus Stand, Korba, Tahsu and RS. Ksrba, Distrm BHaspur. Rageev Gama. Oak: 2. D. Chatargee, $/0 Sim RC. Chatarjee, ‘ resident of Deepak Transpm‘x, Korba, Tahsil and RS. Kcrba, District Biiaspur. 3. United Endia insurance Co, Ltd. through Divisicnai Manager Uniterj End§a insurame Co. Ltd. Kachahri Chauk. JaR Road, Raipur, Tahsii and District, Raipur ’CG.) \ Misae!ianecus Appea! under Seciion 1?3 of Mator VehEc!e Act, 1388. @resgni : Shri SC Verma and Sm AS Singraui, counsei for the aweHant. Name for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patei, counsel for respondent No.3 0 R D E R {1am ApriL 2999) The foHowing order of the Court was passed by Leamed counsei for the parties are heard on MCP No.887l’2005, a petition for condanation of delay in f§iing the appeaL 2} On due censideration of the submissions of ieamed counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeai i1 k 3) i MCP No.887/2005, therefore, is ailowed and the deiay in fifing ihe appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsei for the appeiiant are heard on admission. 5) Appeiiant Mano} Nirmaikar is seeking enhancement of the compensation aWarded by the 14*“ Additionei Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 22.12.2004, passed in Claim Case Not35/2GG4. 6} As against the compensation of Rs.5,58,GGOI-, otaimed by the appeiiant/ ciaimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section i66 or the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.06.2002, when his Hero-push Motorcycie was dashed by the offending vehicie truck bearing registration No.8G-i2-ZC-i2’l6; the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.8,GQO/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6%iper annum from the date of fiiing of the oiaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. . 7.) Learned counsei for the appeiiant vehemently argued that MM xthejrihunai has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.8,SDD/~ 6?? snéy, though appeHant/ ciaimant susiained multEpIe serisus injurie$ incEuéing fractures in the motcr accident. 8) Fm me reasons best known t0 the appeiiani I claimant no doctor was examined befwe the T¥ibuna§ to estabiish the nature 0f the injuries saéd i0 have been sustained by the appenant/ ciaimant in the motm’ accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 9) The queshon whether the medicai certificate produced by the ciair‘nant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issueo the certificate can be reiieej upon as substantive evidence tat the aeseesment of the compensation came up tor consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AF. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy; reported in (2%05) 12 SCC 139: wherein it was observed in para 6 as unaer: “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to sup’pari the order of the High Court, we rind that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disabiittv certificate issued by Dt. Sudhakar Ready and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hioh Court committed dross error in oueriooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medicai certificate was reieoted bv the Tribunai for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the nhysic i disabiiity at 15 oer cent on the basis of the degosition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair corngensation. The High Court erred in disturbind the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently,‘ we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent- ciaimant is aiicwed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it it has not already been withdrawn.“ 53% 1(3) The Apex Court in a recent d§ctum in the case 0f Rajesh Kamar a§ias Reja v. Yadhvir Singh and another, reported in §2w3g ? 36C $5, reiterated the same View with the foirowing observations in pare 1 i : “ ii. The certificate in quee‘iion in this case was obiainee after twa years. it is not nown as to wether the Civil $urge0n of the hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was iseued tw years after the accident took piace i mt knwn. net been examined. Unless the author oi the certificate examined himseif it was not admissihie in evidence. he Whether t disability at 60% was aicuiatee the basis the pmvisions of the Wcrkmen’s Compensation Act or otherwése is not known. it is aiso not known as to whether he was competent o issue such a certificate it even does hot appear that the conentions raised before us had eithet ben raised bore the ribunal ’or the High Court. The Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on recoroi b the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our ooinion, ex taste has no appiication, he same, in our opinn, cannot be permitted to be rised for te first time.” i2) in View of he above quoted dicta oi the Apex Court in the t eases of AP. SRTC v, P. Thirupai Raddy (Supra) ano‘ Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the certificates produced by the appeiiant i’ ciaimant before the Tribunai and the absence of examination of the Doctor issuing those certificates are neither admissibie in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment/ enhancement of the compensation in the case. o i3) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. t: k h o s c The authcr of the said certificate had c an of t . t e ef T y t io a h M) The appeat fiied by the appeKani/ céaémant for enhancement ef the compensation, therefere, is liabie to be dismissed and is X‘ .Su’k “KM/“*1 hereby dismissed summariEy. Sunii. Kumar Sinha \7 ‘ ¥ Judge 7 \ J \ 7 / padma ,