c ^i &oaV giuia^upas a^h-i»^^Ba ES QUDI Qj Ijkijj M'jjMADdMUA 1 fc»i-iL- ^?a-ar%.i i.y^iiiiiL. f^WiviyiBX -isiKri^g w. v-fiCiiuicli u Sanjay Navranae, aaed about 12 vrs, S/o Chhaviram Navrange, Leaal representative of Minor child his father Sadhram Chhavlram Navrangs a;'o Navrange, R/o. Tatinandh Basti P.S. Amsnaka Rsipur, Tsh ^ Distt. Rsipur (C..G.) fc|^B» A.^.i.»i];^/,,B.,A^ f^^E i-a&JiMES^^ia la.s 1 Narayan Verma, aged 55 yr.s, S/o ShobhJt Ram Verma, Occupation Driver R/0 Village & Post Mohra. P.S. Suhela, Tahsil BalodabaZar, Distt. Raipu'r C.G. 2 Gulab Ram Verma, S/o N.P. Verma, R/o Viiiage & Post Mohra, P.S. Suhela, Tahsi! Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Division Office - Balodabazar, Thr. iiyislonai Manaser, Division Office 1/<^ <^l^<^t l^-*» !-~i] D, o" ^scnarian i;nov»'K, jass Koaa, Kaipu; (C.G.) Motor VehicSes Act Present : Shrl SC Verma, counsel None for ,-espondenfs No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrswat, counset for respondent No.3. [11th Augisst, 2009) "he followino order of the Court w Learned counset for the parties are heard on MCP .1091/2006, 3 petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the ^3. 2) On due conslderation of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken In the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showina sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeat. 3) MCP No.1091/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in Tiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appeltant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation avrarded by the 13 Additional Motor Accidents C!aims Tribuna!, Raipur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 17.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.30/2004. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.8,25,000/-, claimed by the appellant / claimant bv filina a claim petition under Section 16( of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2S,C€'0/-as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the ciai.m petition tiil the date of actual payment. 7) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemenily argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only, though the appel!ant'claimant sustalned multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 56%. ¥) For the reasons best known to the appeilanVclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of /y-^"\ 1 i"siS!9h 1 ^^ ^J/ '\x"y 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 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 Eeddy reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in ira 6 as er: "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 ieddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 4; percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examinatlon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mltra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensatlon. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdrav/ the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadv been withdrawn." 0) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowina obsen/ations 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 appeilant. On what basis, such a certlficate was issued two years 'after the accident took piace 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. Whetherthe disability at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t is also not known as whether he was competent to issue such a It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hlgh Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In sbsence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appticability 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, the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the aDpellanVclaimant before the Trlbunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find anv scope for enhancement cf the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) T'ne appeal, therefbre, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/'- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge paams