HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON^BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant (Claimant) Respondents Non-applicants Misc Appeal fC»No.880/2007 .Smt Kumari Bal, Age 37 years, W/o Late Fekuram Sahu, R/o Village - Bhothali, PS Arang^.Distt Raipur, At present ViSlage - Boriyajhar, PS & Tahsil _ Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1 Surendra Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Abhay Ram Pal, By Profession - Driver, R/o Mahamayapara, Kharora, PS Kharora, Tahsil & Distt Rai'pur (CG) (Driver ofthe Mini-Bus No.lO/A/3007) 2 Bhupendra Singh, Age 35 years S/o Late Pritam Slngh Saluja, R/o Kharora, Tahsil - Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) (Owner of Mini-Bus No.CG 10/A/3007) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Divisfonal Office at Madina Building, Jail - Road, Raipur Tahsil & DisttRaJpur(CG) (Ins Com of Mlni-Bus No.CG 10/A/3007) Memo of Misc Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER ^ (7th September, 2009) ^- ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on IA No.1/2007, a petition for condonation 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 application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fillng the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel for the appellarrt ts heard on admisslon. 5) Appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additjonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.11.2006 passed in Claim Case No.51/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant by filing a ctatm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor acddent on 10.04.2006, the Trtbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,0007- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua) payment. 7) Shri JA t-ohani, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently \ argued that the Tribunal has erred In awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- bnly, though the appellant/clajmant sustained ^^f^ .'/"^4 multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) For the reasons best known to the appeMant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medical certiftoate produced by the claimarrt before the Tribunal wlthout examining the Doctor who issued the certiflcate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for oonsideratlon before the Apex Court Sn the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported jn (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing leamed counsel for ttie 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 Sudtokar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal ha& determined the Dh^ical disabilitv at 15 oer c6nt on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mttra and awarded a iust and fair compensatlon. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and J^^-.....- lij /^^ '\ ^f ^ ' ^ r? 1 <x.. ^J./ 'v. ^,^'^r 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 wtthdraw 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 Ra|u Vs 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 Sssued 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 evjd8Q£& Whether the disability at 60% was catoulated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation ^ct 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 materiais 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, tn our /:. ^i Kl <\ ?? %?®S. s '-'>-. opinlon, ex facie has no applicatiort, the same, in our opini'on, cannot be permitted to be raised for thefirettime." 11) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellant / daimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '\