HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appellant C!aimant Respondents I.A.C.No.1172 of 2009. Birendra Kumar, S/o Jairam Verma, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village- Jangi, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur VERSUS 1 Shailendra S/o Balaram Yadav, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Karra, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 Manoj Tiwari, S/o S.B. Tiwari, Aged about 40 years, R/o 25 Bangla, Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Lines, Bilaspur 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Tahsil Complex, Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tahsii & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). iVlisc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Manoj Mishra, counsel for the appellant. ORDER rth (7m September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation ofdelay in flling the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are ^ «. RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.03 16:55:35 +0530 '"s- f/f"""9. '\ 1 'K-^ts^ satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay of three days in filing the appealis hereby condoned. 4) Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admissioo. 5) Appellant Birendra Kumar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11,02,2009, passed in Claim Case No.108/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunat has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.35,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability. 8) For the reasons best known to the appeltant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabtish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant *B 5 J/ in the motor accident and the fact that thcree injuries resutted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medteal certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctpr 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 leamed counsel for the respondent- ctaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the 1-ligh 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 Hiah Court committed aross error in overtookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 percent onthe basis ofthedepositiorLof Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High 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." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in -.—-i_^.— "f\ 9 ...--;.' -^G (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certjficate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civit Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued tovo years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certiQcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibte in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was catculated 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. tn 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." 11) 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 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. ^' 7 12) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. — . Sd/- Chief Justice SdA N-K- Agarwaf Judge subbu l! !