HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ M.A. (C)No. 149 of 2011 Appellant Claimant Respondents 1. Ganesh Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Shri Mouji Ram Sahu, R/o Goverdhan Nagar, Nevra, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Dakeshwar Prasad Verma, S/o Poolsing Verma, R/o Village Devsundra, Police Station Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner and Driver of Bus No. C.G.-04/C.H.0241) Siyaram Vishwakarma, aged about 47 years, S/o Vishram Vishwakarma, R/o Century Cement Baikunth, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner and Driver of Bus No. C.G.-04/C.H. 8367) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Gandhi Mandir Ward Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner and Driver of Bus No. C.G.-04/C.H. 8367) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. Appearance: Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellant. 3. OralOrder (Passed on 7th February, 201 1) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J- 1. Heardonl.A.No. 1/2011. 2. I.A. No. 1/2011 has been flled for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. According to the office report, there is delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 4. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufRdent cause for delay in filing the appeal and the same deserves to be condoned. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/201 1 is allowed and delay in filing the appeat is hereby condoned. 6. Heard on admission. 7. The appellant/claimant Ganesh Ram Sahu is seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded in CIaim Case No. 32/2009 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (C.G.), vide award dated 25.09.2010. 8. The appellanVclaimant filed a daim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act daiming compensation of Rs. 14,20,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.04.2009. 9. Though the appelianVclaimant pleaded that he sustained various injuries including fractures and permanent disablement, but no Doctor was examined by him to substantiate the above contentions. 10.The Tribunal observing all this in para 28 and 29 ofthe award held that since appellant did not examine any Doctor in support of his contention, therefore, he was entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him in the motor I 1 '%£^""~yj \^yy 0 accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 11 .Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only, whereas, the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 12.For the reasons best known 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. 13.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 A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thiruoal Reddv. reported in (2005) 12SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.IVI. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow 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. 14. The Apex Corut in a recent dictum in the case of Raiesh Kumar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Sinah and another. reoorted in (2008} 7 SCC 305. reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 1 1: "11. 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 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. ^"""^ .r; .• -'" ^.=..=.^^..., Unless the author of the certificate ^examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions 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 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." 15.As we have already mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the appellant/claimant either susteined fracture or he suffered any permanent disability on account of injuries sustained by him. Even the documents (certificates including the medical examination report) filed by him were not proved. 16.1n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thiruoal Reddv (Suora) and Raiesh Kumar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Sinah and another (Supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the Doetor issuing the certificate is neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. 17.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 18.The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 19.No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- f Sunil Kumar Sinha | Judge | Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Vijay