-<-- s- Sarwan S/o Gayaram Chandrawanshi, Aged about 32 years, r/o Kharripara, District Bilaspur(CG) Pawan Chandravanshi, S/'o Jalesh Aged about 28 years, R/o Lakhanpurkala District towardha (CG) 3 iVianoj Sharma, S/o Late DP Sharma, R/o Maruti Medical Stores Kawardha(CG) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (CG) Present : Ms Deepali Pahdey and Ms Neelima Verma, counsei for the appellant. Ei (20th The Tollowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGypta,CJ.; - ;:: • '. Ms Deepali Pandey and Ms Neglima Verma, tearned eo'iJnsel for theappellant are heard on IA No.1/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delayinfilingtheappeal; 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel Tor the appellant and the ;grounds taKen 'in the applteation, we are 2 <S1 satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant are hsard on admission. 5) Appellant - Sarwan is seeking enhancement of the eompensation awarded 'by the Additiona! Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 31.01,2008, passed in Claim Case No.33/2007. 6). As against the compensation of Rs.14,20,000/- daimed by theappeliant/claimant byfiling aclaim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Aet for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.06.2006, theTribunalawarded a totai sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actua! 7). Ms. Deepali Pandey and Ms. Neeiima Verma, learned counset for the appellant yehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.21,000/- onlythough the appellanVciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including " fractures in the motor accident resulting in perrhanent disability. 8) From para 18 of the award, we gather that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medicai expenses; Rs.2,500/- towards special difet; Rs.2,500/- towards pain and sufferihg; and Rs.6,000/- for loss of income for a period of four months durina_which the daimant could notattend to his dutiesas c Mason. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation to the ciaimant. 9) For the reasons best known to the appellanf claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal'to establish the nature of the injuries said to have beensustained bythe appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. -• 10) 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 Gompensation came up for consideratior, before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupc Reddy, rep'orted in (2005) 12 SCC 188, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 disabitity 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 overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate was rejected by the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabilityat 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred_ _in. _distyrbin<i _the_ same_ and_ _enhancLn5_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 oot already been withdrawn." 11) 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. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certifjcate had not been exammed^ Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It isalso not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. !t 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 been raised in regard to the applicabillty 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." 12) In view of the above quoted dicta ofthe Apex Court inthe cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) andRajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunai without examining th@ Doetor who had issued thesaid '^'^w III^l l a, i-y subbu certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Theappeat filed by the appellant/elaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. - ^ll"i vmi Sd/- Chief Justice l':Sd/-:^' : ! R.N.Cliaridrakar Judge III l;!i