r~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: Appellant Appiicant DiVSSiON BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUIVIAR SiNHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1069 ofZOOS Mahettar Lat Chandra, aged about 27 years, S/o Rohsn Lal R/o Viiiage Anda, Via Bilha, P.S. Patharia, Dlstt. Bilaspur Respondents Non-Appilcants f n\ o.\J.; VERSUS Vijay Singh, S/o Durup Singh aged abut 30 ysars R/o Bhartiya Nagar Bii'aspur (C.G.) 2 Hari Shankar Sahu S/o Motilal sahu aged about 30 years R/o Kirari Tahsil Janjgir Distt. Janjyir-Champa (C.G.) 3 The National tnsurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Offlce Bhartiya Nagar, Biiaspur (C.G.) 4 Laxmi Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Vidya Nsgar Biiaspur (C.G.) 5 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rsjendra Nagar Chov/k, iitespur (C.G.) 6 Chhattisgarh Tractors, through S.K. Jain Yadunandan Nagar Road, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the iVIotor Vehicies Act 1888 Present : Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeiiant. None for respondents No.1, 2, 4& 6. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, iearned counsel with Shri Avinash Chand Sahu & Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No.3. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. •\. (27th Juiy, 200°) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, G.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 1269/2005, a petition for condonation of the delay in fiting the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiting the appeal. 3) M.C.P. No. 1269/2005, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Ravlndra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeltant is heard on admission. 5) Appeilant Mahettar Lal Chandra Is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additional Motor Accldents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 19.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.97/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm and the damage caused to his Auto-rickshaw in the motor accident on 17.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.23,950/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitlon till the date of actual payment. 3 7) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counse! for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding iow compensation of Rs.23,950/- only, though tHe appellant/ciaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries in the motor accident and his Auto-rickshaw was also badly damaged In the motor accident. 8) For the reasons best known to the appellanVciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those Injuries resuited in any permanent disability. , 9) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal 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 as under: "6. After hearlng 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 theHigh Court to rely on the disablllty certiflcate 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 overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlficate was reiected bv the Tribunat for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal i has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per H 10) cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we atlow this appeal, 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 already been withdrawn." The Apex Court in a recent dictum In the case of Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same vipw with the foliowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not knowh as to whether the CiviS Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basls, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examlned. Unless the author of the certificate examlned himself. it was not admissibte in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensatton Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribuna! as also the Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabtlity of the :ifiiniinit Kn**(iTf-»tw* 111iNli "'tT-,, % ^"T 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 certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) Though the claimant pleaded that his Auto-rickshaw suffered damage to the extent of Rs.40,000/- in the motor accident, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.20,944/- towards the damage to the cIaimant'sAuto-rickshaw. 13) On due conslderation of the submisslons of learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either for the injuries said to have been sustalned by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident or the damage caused to his Auto-rickshaw. 14) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. A^-\. Chief Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi