(g7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATSGARH AT BELASPUR mygcmm gaunt: TI vivnu ‘vl I 60mm: HowmE HoN’BLE SHRI SHR: sumL RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA. Swim, C J. Jj Misc. Anpeai No. 398 of 2604. Kumari Heerabati, Aged about 16 years, (Minor) Daughter of 8hr: Sfyaram Vaidh Caste Kalar Throuah : Natura! Guardian Father Shri Siyaram Vatdh, Son of Shri Subran Vaidh, Aged about 47 years, Caste —- Katar, Post Bharrdar, PS. Seoni Pharasgaon, ‘Distt. Bastar f!‘ f‘ \ (Mu-L}. Apnel’tant VERSUS Sukhdas, Aged about 21 years,‘ Son of Shrt Asadu, R/o Bhandharseoni, RS. ~ Distt. Bastar Resnondents Pharasgaon, . (Chhattisgarh) Driver'of the Vehicle 2 Ramoawan Jaiswai Son of Shri Bandhu Jaiswat, Resident of Vtttage and Post - Pharasgaon, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Owner of the Vehicte 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Thru : The Branch Manager, Branch Office At Jagdalpur, Near Post Office Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) insurer 6f the Vehicie. Miscetianeous Aoneal under Section 173 (1) of the Meter Vehicies Act, 1988 Present : ‘Shri Avtnash K. Mishra, teamed counsel forthe appetiant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, teamed counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER (22m Jaw, 2999) JV'TJ s The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Raieev Gunta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 493/2004, a petition for condonation of the defay in filing the appeaL a a I 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeal. 3) MCP. No. 493/2004, therefore, isallowed and the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, 4) Shrl Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant] claimant Kumari Heerabati is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 13.11.2003, passed in Claim Case No.1 56/2002. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.18,62,000/—, claimed by the appellant / claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166‘ of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on‘ 25.10.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of R541 ,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiii the date of actuai' payment. 9 7i Shri Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low ‘ compensation of Rs.41,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. I ‘éf For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish 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 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 evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupat Raddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, whereingit was observed in para 6 as under : “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 disabiiity certificate 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 cverlooking_the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s l medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunai for non—examination of that doctor. The Tribunai eter i e e s: al d' abilit t 5 er cent on the basis of the degosition of Dr KM Mitre and awarded a iust and fair comcensation. The Hioh Court erred in disturbind the same and enhancinq the compensation. COnsequently, we aiiow 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 already been withdrawn.” 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 3G5, reiterated the same “View with the following observations in para 11 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not knewn as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. 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 l' not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disabilitv at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or othenrvise 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, 5 £99 proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having h been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity 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 Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar ‘t aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appeliant/claimant before the Tribunal without examinino 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 of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appeilant/ claimant for enhancement df the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sal— ’L x’ Chief Sdl- Jusu‘ce ‘ (/Smfl: Kumw‘ Sinhg‘ i \