HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram APPELLANT Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 915 of 2006 : Durgesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Dev Singh, age about 24 yrs, R/o Vill. Budani, P.0. Khauli, Teh. Tilda, Djstt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Sonuram. 2. Rupram Sahu, S/o Budha Ram Sahu 1 and 2 are R/o Vill. Jaraud, P.0. Farfaud, P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. By- Divlsional Manager, Chauhan Complex, in front of Rajkumar College, Raipur (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT.^t98r Present: Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20th August, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No.1260/2006, a petition for Gondonation of the detay In filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of tearned Gounsel for the parties and the grounds taken In the petition, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing suffteient cause forthe delay in flling the appeal. 3. M.C.P. No. 1260/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay of SOdays in filingthe appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Raja Sharma, leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant - Durgesh Kumar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 23.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.69/2005. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- ctaimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- 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 Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,000/- only though the appetlant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries jn the motor accident. ^JJ ^t"^'^ ':J^T^^ 8. Though the claimant examined two wttnesses jn support of his claim before the Tribunal (AW1 Durgesh Kumar Sahu and AW2 Kamlesh) for the reasons best known to the 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 injuries resulted in any permanent djsability. 9. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunat without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence 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 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para6 asunder: "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 treatjng the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hjah Court commftted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicaf certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined thephvsical djsabifitv at 15 oer cent bn the basis of the depositton of Dr. K.M. Mttra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in djsturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ofthe Claims Trlbunal. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 4 10. The Apex Court in a recent dtetum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same vlew with the following observations in para 11: "11. The certtficate in question in this case was obtajned after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated theappellant. On what basis, such a certificate w^ 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. jt was not admissible jn evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisjons 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 High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiafs brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appltoabiljty of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex fade 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 jn the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thimpal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates 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. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. ^.fCT^. /y^ \ m\ '^y' nimmi ^ 13. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha / Judge