«.36 HIGH CRT OU OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appeal under’Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19a8 Present : Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (16th July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. _ Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on M.C.P.No.925/2005, a petition for oondonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the petition, s DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. ' HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 190 of 2004 Appellant Kumari Sapna D/o Late Madhusudan Claimant Gandhi, Aged about— 10 years Applicant’s Mother Manorama Devi Widow of Late Madhusudan Gandhi, R/o Village- Khorpa Tahsil— Abhanpur, ¢ Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Puran Prakash S/o Sri Bharat Ram Non-applicants Sahu Aged about- R/o- Kanidabri, Thana- Arjani, Distt— Dhamtari, M/s. Mehta Enterprises, MG. Road, Dhamtari (C.GI) 2 M/s. Mehta Enterprises MG. Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager No.2 Sai Nagar— Raipur (C.G.) my h). we are satiwed that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No.925/2005, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/claimant Kumari Sapna ls seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 10.10.2003, passed in Claim Case No.1 4/2003. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,17,000/— claimed by the appellant! 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 06.11.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000f- 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 S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 8) 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 A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it " 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 hnd 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 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent—claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it‘has not already been withdrawn.” t 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in . @ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same View with the following observations in para 1 1 : 11) “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. 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 nrst time.” ln View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.\SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. 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. 5f: r @ 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. s liabie to be dismissed and is 13) The appeal, therefore, i / hereby dismissed summariiy. ’rf/f‘” Sdl- ‘ A ' i. r Sunii Kumar Sinha i» r ” Chief Sdl— Justice , a r r / Judge r} i subbu V ,, r w $ r. (