\^ HJGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. (1.) T Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1060 of 2011 Appellant Claimant Jhumuklal Chaturvedani, S/o Gupiaan Chaturvedani, aged about 60 years, Occupation Patwari, R/o Belbhanta, Post P Jamgaon, PS Abhanpur, Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS fc Respondents 1 Dhananjai Kumar Maheshwari, s/o Non-claimants Kishanlal Maheshwari, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Bhakhara, PS Bhakhara, Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) (Driver) 2 Keshav Singh Gour, S/o Virendra Singh Gour, Occupation - Owner, R/o Risaipara, Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (CG) (Owner) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Zonal Manager, Zonal Office - 1 Kachheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the appellant. J3RDER >th (20I"October,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. MAC.No. 1060 of 2011 ^ c. v c Shri S.K. Guha, learned coynsel for the appellant is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) 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 th^ delay infiling the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delayin filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/ claimant Jhumuklal Chaturvedani is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additipnal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.02.2011, passed in Claim Case No.28/2010. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- 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 23.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dette of filffig of the claim petition till the date of actualpayment. 7) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently^argued that the Trihunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellant/claimant \ \ "<1'?^.. ' .i?:>&;ii't "^ •'WSS% j -„ "^/ '^ '":r"-' ^: A.C.No. 1060 of 2011 sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself alone in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medical certifieate produced by the daimant 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 certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatingthe injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court- committed aross error in oyertookinci the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate w8s reie€ted bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mjtra and awarded a iust and fair compefisation. The Hjgh Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, K y /t I^ "'^^^.s.^ .A.C.NO. 1060 of 2011 c we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw theamount 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 (2008) 7 SCC 305, 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 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 bee.n raised in regard to the applicability of the Worjsmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in oyr opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." ^N 't -i| %sg"^,, | y MAC.No. 1060 Of 2011 v subbu 11) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. ThirupalReddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. * 12) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^--