.•s^s^s^, c< J'OJ Cisinisnt Non-clalmanti Deen Dayai Prasad Gupta, S/o Lt Shri Mukha! Gupta, aged 49 years, profsssion - service r/o. Uu< No.12-A, Street No.6, Sector -11, ie-1, Khursipaar, Bhilai, Tahsil Dist. Durg (CG). Dhanesh Kumar s/o./ Manharan Lal Yadav, aged 28 years, Professon Driver, r/o. viliage: Kachandur, PS- Jevra, Sirsa, Tahsil & Distt. Durc (CG). Amrit Minera.Is and Hadrings, r/o. viilage Kachandur, P.S. Jevra, Sirsa, Tahsii and Distt. Durg, (CG) through Prop. Baidev Singh. Sranch Manager, Ifco Tokyo Generai insurance Company Ltd., Add.- 345- 347, 3ro Flr, .Lalganj Shopping Mall, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG). iscelianeous Appeai u/S 173 of the Motor VehicleAct. Present: Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for the appeltant. ith The foliowina order of the Court was passed by .€Z: „vy '^. Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for ths appellant is heard on I.A.No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation of the delay in fiiing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counse! for the appeiiant and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded In showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is ailowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Devershi Thakur, iearned counse! for the appe!!ant is heard on admission. 5) Appeliant - Deen Dayal Prasad Gupta is seekin< enhancement of the compensatlon avi/arded by the 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.03.2010, passed in Ciaim Case No.62/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10,63,900/- claimed by the appeliant/claimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 1 the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.64,877/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per gnnum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.64,877/- only though the appellanVclaimant w ffsl~SSXS%. '--<. "•a,. r ^s-s-aa^ ^ I •v®SSlB>l 'i T; '—"---sy j/{ J / r f ^ sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor iccident resulting in permanent disability. n tefore the Tribuna!, the claimant examined two witnesses inciuding himself (AW-1 Deen Dayal ' Prasad Gupta and AW-2 Yogesh Chand Sharma) in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him In the motor accident and the fact that those imuries resulted in any permanent disability. )) The question whether the medical certlficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examinina 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. Thirupai 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 Hiah Court, we find that there was no justification for the Hiah Court to rely on the disabilitv certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The_ High__Coyrt___commjtted gross error jn overiookingjhe fact_that, DL Sudhakar Reddv's medical certiflGate ___was reiected__bv the_ Trjbunai _1or_ non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabititv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair fc' iSS<\ <t "19 ^ /y f compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and °nhancinQ the compensation. Consequentlv, we allow this appeai, 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 alresdy been withdrawn." The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesl lar aiias Raju v. S) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the followina irvations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On vi'hat basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The_author_of the sald certificate had not been examined. Uniess the authoLof_the,certi5cate examjned hjmself^ it _was, not admissible in evidence. Whether-the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provislons 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. It even doss not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before-the Tribunal or the Hi'gh Court. The Tribunal as aiso the Hiah 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." ^•-^' ,'r-" ^ ''"*'?1' / 11) The medica! certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examinina the doctor who had issued those certificates, in view ofthe above quoted d;cte ofthe Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thin (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 13) The appeal fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge