:. :^:'.\Br;'..«"^%^?~-? COURT nsuin ^"jun irSi?dL E g S< .,OU KT si E'"^W: iN'BLE iltj'l S" 9na O. 's^- F^ •A. CJ. 'ai (Cj No. 28 of PuniramThawait, S/o Shri Sundarla', Aged about 34 years, R/o Sukulpara, Viii. Kliaraud, Thana Shiwrinarayan, Dist. Janjgir - Champa (C.G). Cia'mant Kesooncieni' Non-ADpllcants Ramiakhan, S/o Sri Rampati Yadav, Aged abut 30 yers, R/o Mahiyapur, Thana Gurau, Dist : Gaya Bihar, Present Address, Vill : Kodatarai, Distt. Ralgarh (CG). 2. Upendra Singh, S/o Late Devnandan Sinah, Aged about 40 years, Kfldatarai, DIstt: Raigarh (CG) Vill : 3. The Orientg! Insurance Company Ltd. Throu.gh Divislonai Manager, ".P. Nagar, Korba, Dist: Korba (CG). ^.?^'c'>^Th*'^pr.%^.Hs??TS in°T ii'.^i%ri- ^^T!;^^! U^.T!^?' ^.ssp''l'i^itiTs *fT^ ^;? tHi S^i^s^U^ fiSHUUSa ^ ^^ iy3a^S;^t= ^^iJ^^S^S U^UiS^ •itSss^i.iiijss a ^i •^ ^^ ;isi1 ^^^•^r ^^fe.H^ifflie? ^. >iE't"ui.'S.t^;:li -y Sd.'ii 2'iarf.S'a-^g- i"-&%rf-i. Prp-^.i^HT ' SHfi \^ A t-snv^mn^n f:oi]HRQi mr ?H& snDs-u^! i 'i SO^?! ;i< . *in/: J i i V ,i'*"L. <u?tkJ¥^;i i»ni iirfii i j ^•U'U; ii3!t3; i\Jii tll'Sr Uj^iuf<C.iiStiit.. f^S^ !. ^•fi4 |l4- January, The foliowiny order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Qupta, C.J. ' Shri V.A. Goverdhan, iearned counsel for the appeiiant is heard on !.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in fiSing the appeal. "^ 2) On aue consideration or the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in t'ne application, we are satlsfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sunlcient cause for the deiay in filing the appeai. 3) i.A.No.1/2010, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay of 2i days In fiiing the appeai is hereby'condoned. 4) Shri V.A. Goverdhan, iearned counset for the appeliant is hesrd on admlssion. . 5) Appeilant - Puniram Thawait is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Second Additionai Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Janjglr (for short 'the Tribunal') vide av/ard dated 01.09.2009, passed in C.laim Case No.42/2009. 6). As against the compensation of, Rs.4,77,OC'0/- ciaimed by fh;s> s^p^11.ant/<"ll?sim^ri'l" Hv? fiiir^r<! a r*l^im nofiiinn i'nH&r P,ian_fif^i^ 1R^ \i i'V- dsJ'^'diffliil./iw'iC-i.HiiSii.lt. ?^¥ UfiSi'ui Gt ku'iCifili i-''^'lit.iUlE ^U^Ci i-^iiS^i5^i'i 1 i F ( »f ^h/ ff of the iVlotor Vehictes Act Tor the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11 .06.2008, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation a'ong 'A'ith interest @ S% per annum from the date of filins of the claim petition tll! the date of sctuai payment. '7). Shri V.A. Goverdhan, !earned counse! for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation pf Rs.15,000/- on!y though the appeIIanVciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciuding fracturss in the rnotor accident resultlng in permanent disability. 8) From para 10 of the award, we gather that the appellanf claimant did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injurses said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabliity. 9) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining t'ne Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive i^vi^lisr'-r^iS fr^r thffi s^^i's^'smonf rtf fh^ ,f^n;'rsn;sri%sfin,n r^smss fsn fir'if ^V iUS^J c^/^ t'l-ft i-UC; £2.tS-SC;OiSiiSS;UL dJi t-lE^ ^-^E ESU'^L i-^Si.i^i S LfCil E IG^ LSM (VI conslderation before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. ThirupaS Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it 'A'as observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing ieamed pounses for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order ofthe High Coun, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to re'y on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by trsating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiflh Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certincate vvas rejected by the Triouna[_,foL___non- examination of that doctor. The Trlbynainasaeiermined the physica! disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of Vm deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hi.qh Court erred in disturbinci the sarne and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Cialms Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of _/-/ /^^\ S &„«•«?»:..a ^ ^^^^^1 ^ Y.v^"/ cornpensation awarded by the Tribunal, If it has not alreadv been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh ar aisas Kaju v. Yuanvir singn ana another, reported in 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 knov/n as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate vvas issued two years after the accldent took piace is not known. The author of t!ie_said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the aytbor of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% vtfas caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or oth.ervrfise is not known. it is a!so not knov.'n as to whether he was competent to s<s.%ujs c:i fr;h ?s r:?>i''tif!r"^f^t If s^^/f^n rtno^ nr'if ?irin;?a?>r thsai' fi i'Sf\3^^f <-?iui»/t i C^ W-Stt Lsi t^'Sn.l.^. ii. f^Wfil ^t^CO U^-rt Ct n<f U'S; S-i. E 't.SsCil. s.! contentions raised before us had either been raisec' befos'e the Tribuna! or the Hiflh Court. The Tribuna! as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention 'naving been raised in rsgard to the ipplicability of the VVorkrnen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex fade has no application, the same, in our opinion, ca'nnot be permitted to be raised for the first time." J 1) ln view of the above quoted diota of the Apex Court in the 8S Of a.'s n{ IV V, Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the Jr ' . medical cenificates produced bythe appellant/ciaimant before the i! "ISSSS'.A ^ %.-y, Vf"" ^ \^ Tribuna! vv'ithout examining the Doctor who hsd issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ot tne compensation in ttie case. 12) Vu'e, therefore, do not find arty scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal fiied by the appeSiant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, iherefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice SUbbU' Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judee r ^