HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DLVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (Ct No. 620 of2010 Smt. Fuleshar, w/o Durjan Njshad, aged about 40 years, R/o village Rakadih, Thana Magarlod, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G. Versus 1. Salikram, S/o Girdhari Ram Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o VJHage Kurra, Thana Gobra Nayapara, Tehsil Abhanpur, district Raipur C.G. 2. Toran Sinha, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Sinha, R/o Magariod, Thana Magariod, Distrtot Damtari. C.G. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Madina Building, Jail Road, near Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (30th June, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A. No. 02/2010, the document filed along with this application is taken on record. ^y 2) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fillng the appeal. 4) I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5) Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 6) Appellant - Smt. Fuleshar has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.90/2008. 7) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- 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 motpr accident on 17.01.2CX)8, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appetlant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low r ^ %^" compensation of Rs.3,100/- only though the appellant/ daimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures In the motor accident. 9) 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. 10) 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 find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certiflcate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatihg the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that5 Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medfoal 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.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, i I 1 ^,: . ^^^ /: -- ^^ 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." 11) 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 11: "11. The certiflcate 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. Untess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability gt 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 eifher 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 appljcability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no applteation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." .^; "'^ ^••< (• .^- ^. .•1" •" ^^>. ^.^'.. 12) In 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 certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration forenhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 14) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice nlmmi Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge