^^ !rfn|,Rj;@i JUN Bi Sindu Jurri D/o Asharam Jurri, aged about 19 years, R/o Ektanagar, Kanker, Distrlct North Bastar Kanker (CG) 1. Nasir an S/o Mohd. Bashir Caste Musalman, aged about 50 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 2 Manoj Singh S/o Hanskumar Thakur, aged about 25 years, R/o Annapurna Para, Kanker District Kanker (C.G.) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Main Road Sadar Bazar, Jagdaipur, District Sastar (C.G.) (Miscellsneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988) Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant, The following order of the Court was passed f [y 1^»^ Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned pounsel for the appellant is hear.d on I.A.No. 1/2009, an application for condonation ofthe delay in fillng the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appeltant and the grounds taken in the ri- applscation, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing suffictent cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.1/2009, therefore, is ailowed and the delay th.e appeai is her 4. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant Bindu Jurri is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.04.2007, passed in Claim Case NQ. 108/2006. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.10,94,000/- claimed by appeliant/claimant Bindu Jurri, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 08.06.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,12,466/- as compensation along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.1,12,466/- awarded by the Tribuna! is too low in^cpmparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the app.eUant/ claimant in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellanVclaimant no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to establish the nature the iniuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV 'ue'fe.. I "••'"'•^•''i^S^s'Sst claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examinina the Doctor who issued the certlficate can be relled upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensati consideration before the Aoex Court in the case on came up for apal Reddy, reported in (200S) 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 So be 45 per cent. The, Hiah _Court CQmmitted_ gross_ error_in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certifjcate _was_ Lejectsd_ bv_the_,Trib_ynaL_for_no,n- examHTation_^f_fna:,doctoL^The Tribunal has determined . the_ phvsical disability at 15j;er cent onAhe basLs_of_the aeposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the comRensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunai. ..-The respondent-ciaimant is ailowed to withd'raw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 0. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh ^umar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 4 (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_ oT__the_ certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie 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 Hiah 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 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 disabllity certificate 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. /y*!- .^ ^^^-'^ § '"MW^ ,!i ^ ^ 3 <t,. 'tte^ ^ '^-1,.^-;.^ 12. the comps 13) The of the therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of awarded bv the Tribunal. ;al filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement ion, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge / Subbu ^