^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appellant/ Cialmant Respondents (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) Misc. Appeal (C»No. 1192 of 2009 Anoop Kumar Sahu S/o Ramjj Sahu aged about 42 years through Smt Amroutin Bai W/o Shri Anoop Kumar Sahu, age about 40 years R/o Viltage - Maharajpur, Tah & Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) ^ VERSUS 1. Shatrughan Lal Patel S/o Shri Hira Lal Patel age about 33 years R/o Village Bajrang Para Station Maroda, Bhilai, Tah & Distt Durg (CG) 2. Ashok Kumar Jaln S/o Kanwar Lal Jain Age about 40 years, R/o Gunderdehi, Tah Gunderdehi, Distt Durg (CG) 3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Akash Ganga Parisar, Supela Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, counsel for the appellant. ORDER ith (9tnSeptember,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an appltoation for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are \^ ^ 'A satisfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is altowed and the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.S.P. Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Anoop Kumar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') videaward dated 25.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.33/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.8,13,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.33,010/- 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 J.S.P. Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.33,010/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 8) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, neither the doctor who had treated the ciaimant for his injuries nor the other doctor who had issued the disability certificate were examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries F- said to have been sustained by the appellant/ daimant 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 reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Htah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, 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." r' 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 view with 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 calcutated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise js not known. It' is also not known as to whether he was competent to jssue such a certiflcate. 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 opinion, 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 alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the ^^ •^:;. ,r ^ subbu Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe 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 appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. __- Sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge