HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HGN’ELE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. 'u HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeai No. 214 of 20§4 Appellant Manoj Kumar Banjare S/o Sri Shyam Ciaimant Ratna Banjare, aged about 21 years, & R/o Distt. Jarwav Ra'EFSur Thana (c.93- Amanaka, Tahsil ' VERSUS Sita Ram Sahu S/o Sri Mansha Ram ’ Sahu, Occupatbn — Vehicle Owner, R/o Dabrapara — Bhiiai, Thana - Bhiiai, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office — Kachahari Chowk, Jail Rcad — Raipur (C.G.) 3 Fool Kumar Kewant S/o Sri Rupnath Kewat, aged about 32 years, R/o Khursipar — Bhiiai, Thana — Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.) Resnondents Non-appticams Miscellaneous AQQeal under Section 173 of the _ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri S.C. Verma & $hri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No2. ORDER (17m July, 2909) 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. 1681/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal m 2) On de consideraio of the submissions of learned counsel u tn f the parties d the grounds taken in the application we are §or an , atisfied tha e appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient s t th cause for he delay n tiling the appeal. t i ) M.C. No.1081l2004, therefor, is allowed and the dela of 3 .P e y 15 days in mg he appeal is hereby condoned. 4 Learned counsel for he appellant are heard o admission. ) t n ‘5 Appellant/ claimant Mano} Kumar njare is eing enhancement of the compensation arded by the First Additional Motor Accident laims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, “the Tribunal” ‘l t 2 p 6) As against the compenation of R.18.00,000/-, claimed‘by the apllant / claiant by filing a claim petition undr Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuri sustained by him ’ln the motor accident on 6.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of 1 Rs.,500/- ompensation alongwith interest @ % per annum from the date of filing of the laim petition till the ate ofctual payment. 7) Learn cousel for the appellant veh‘mently argued that the Tribual has erred in awarding low compensation o Rs.9,500/- only, though the appellant/claiman sustained multiple serious t injries including fractures in the motor accident. u ) For the reasonsbest known to the appeliantclaiman, no 8 ‘ w /t octor was examined before he Tribunal to establish the nature of ‘ i . . . . l l l ‘ V ‘ vide award daed 11.08.003, assed in Claim Case No.157/2002. d t the injuries said to have een stied by he appellant/claimant in t )‘ Ba sek t aw i C ) i s s i pe m e es 9 as c e 6 c d ga ed n e t n f b suan t in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiiity. 9) The question whether the medicai certiffcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining 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 ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupai Raddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. iAfter 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 reiy on the disability certiticate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv’s medicai certificate was reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at“ 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr kit/i Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore thex'award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn.” @ 1G) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foiiowing observations in para 11 : “1 1. 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 appeiiant. 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 authnr of the certificate examined himself it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is aiso 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 aiso the High Court, therefore.s~ 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.” .-\ 11) in View of the above quoted dicta 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 appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those cenificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the E compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 13) The appeal fl|ed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation: therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is I hereby dismissed summarily. g Sdj- ‘ Chief Justice 1 l nlmml