"^. ^. \ HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.CJ. HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Appellant CSaimant Non-apDlicant Misc Appeai No.1073 of 2004. Smt. Budhiya Bai, aged about 48 years, W/o Bhauia! Banjare, Profession Labourer, R/o Mana Basti, P.S. Mana Camp, Raipur Tahsii & District Ralpur (C.G.). Versys 1 Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, aged about 23 years, S/o Shyamlal Sahu, R/o Janta Cotony, House No.253, P.S. Gudiyari, Raipyr, Tahsi! & District Ralpur (C.G.). 2 Ajay Kumar Agrawal, S/o Nand Kumar Agravv'a!, R/o Near Durga Aata Chacki, Shrinagar, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.). Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicle Act. 1S88 Present : Ms. Som Shukla Sarkar, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (23rd August, 2010) The folEowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. Ms. Som Shukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on IVICP No. 1189/2005, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeat. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are ,,,^SK^^ ,^^'"^"^ £ "'-. 2 satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showino sufficient cause forthe delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.1189/2005, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeai is hereby condoned, 4) Ms. Som Shukla Sarkar, iearned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Smt. Budhiya Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.04.2004, passed in Ciaim Case No.53/2003. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.8,25,000/-, claimed by the appeilant/claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.11.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) For the reasons best known to the appellant / ciaimant, no doctor was examined to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 8) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the daimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate cari be relied upon as substantive evidence ® ^ /-' tr for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCG 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the disability certlficate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committedaross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsicai disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a Just and fair comDensation. Ths Hiah 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 Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 9) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar ajias Raju Vs 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 ^btained after two years. It is not known as to ^^-'.,..1 \.ir c, whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissible 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 isalso 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 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." 10) In view of the above quoted tfcte of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appeilant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining, the Doctor who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ^ -- ^^-'1!""..:- (^ 12) The appeal, filed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- ;R.N. Chandrakar —Judge subbu i^