HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SWQ RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HGtN'BLESHRI reASHJW KUMAR MISHRA, J. Misc. Appeal (C»No. 857 of 2010 Apoellant Clahnant Respondents Ashma Khatun D/o. M(*Kl. IsWiaque aged about 32 years, occupidion Bangle Business, resident of Village Unchdeeh, Polfce Station and Tah^l Surajpur, di^rict Surguja (C.G:) VERSUS Santram son of Biarat, a®edabout 35 yeare, Cag&e Gond, Occupation driver, residerrt of viltage Chanderpur, Police StaUon and Tahsil Surajpur, distrtet Surguja (Driver) Dinesh Kumar Gupta son of Tfrath Prasad gupta, aged about 42 years, owner of the vehicte, Truck No. C.G- 15/Z.C./0401, resident of Bhaiygthan Road, Surajpur, district Surguja (Owner) Unital India lireurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, distrtot Surguja (C.G.) (Insurer) Memo ofAppeal under Sectkwi 173 of the Motor Vducte Act. ^1988 ~^ Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for ttie appellant. ' CMTOER (18th August, 2010) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shrt Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed cainsel for the appetlant is heard on I.A.No.01/2010, an appllcatlon ftn- Gondonation ofthe delay in flling the appeal. 2) On due consideratlon of the submisstons of teamed counsel for the aj^etlant and the grounds taten In e applteatton, we are satisfied that the appellant bas succ^«tin showing suffteient cause for the ctelay in filing ttie appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is atlowed and delay of29 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Leamed counsel ftor the a|^>ellant is heard en admissft?n. 5) A(^)ellant - Ashma Khatun isseeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Firet Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (forshort the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.02.2010, passed jn Claim Case No.4W2007. 6) As against the OTmpensation of Rs.10,00,000/-claimed by -the appellant/claimant by fiting a clahn petltion under SecUon 166 ofthe Motor Vehteles Act ftw the injuries sustained by ha" in the motor accident on 09.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation afong with intwest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing af the claim p^itlon till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tritainal has erredi in awarding low Gompensation of Rs.30,000/- only though the appellanVctaimant sustained multfple serious injurtes in e motor accident. 8) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as many E® three witnesses inctuding herself (AW-1 Ramlal, AW-2 tehma atun and AW-3 Manoj Nath) in support of hw claim. For the reasons-b^ known to theappeHant/ clamnant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establfsh ttte nature of the injuries said to have been sustainal by the appellant/ daimant in the mrtor accittent and the fact that those injuries resulted fn any permanent disabftity. 9) The qu^ton whether the medteal Gerttftate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal withoi* examming the Dorter who issued the certiflcate can be relted upon aa sutetsnBve evidence for the assessment of the compensaHon came up fw consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. SRTCv. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2008) 12 »;C189, whereln It was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing teamed eounsd forflie respwdent- claimant who made an att»nptto support the onter OfVne High Court, we find that there was no ju^ficati<»tfor ttie Hfgh Court to rely on the disabillty certiflcate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance ttre compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed (voas error In- overiookina the fect that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medieal ~ eertificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examinatian of that rinchir The Trihiinal has rietermined r ."al, r^A. 14f'? our opinion, cannd toe pemittted to be raised forthe rnst time." 11), In view of the above quoted {Scta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Raddy (Supra) and Itegesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another <&jpra), e medical certifteate produced by the appellant/ctaimant before th& Tribunal without examining the Doctor vAw had ^ued the sasdt certfftcate, eannotbe taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensationin the case. 12) We, therefore,(to not find any scope fbr enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeat fited by the aj^aellant/clalmant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. "'—_ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \ "^. ^- A \-^