;t HIGHCOURTOF BILASPUR DIVJSI&N H CORAKt: HON'BLESHRIRA,JEEVGUPTA,CJ, MON'BLESHRIR^ISIGNATHCHANDRAKARJ. Misc.ADDeal K^ -^ Appenant Claimant (PRVN^ 2038/2010 Respondents Non-applicants Chandjel KumarKujur, Son ofLate Beer Sai| Kujur, |aged jabout^^^^^^^^^^^ Occui^atibn ^ervice j(Assistant (SFade III, lr|i@atton| Depairtrnen^^^^^^ S Guardian forminbFdaugl'iterKy.Siwsni Kuiipr,|D/6 G^andel KumarKyju^ about tyears,€|ccupati(m^S^ ¥ill^g^-Deygarh, RS Sitapur, District Surguja(CG)| i At Ip'i'&sent R/o |Yillage Navaj^ara; Surajpyr, P6 andj^^^^^^^^t^ DistFictSui^uja^CG)j V^rsus.''! 'v'':. l..l':'.::-.;':.''''^^^ Pinfu I^^Ch^otu DMbey, son of late Vinod j Dubey, ag6d about 16 years (MinQr), T'hrough : iTTie mother Renu Dievi, iwife of la^ ^ Oecupatjori Service,| (Ctentral Hospital Vishrampyr) R/o j Qtr N6,504. DepartMental Color^, Vjshram Purt Colliery, PS Vishrampur, Tahsjl Surajpur,DistrictSui^uj9(C©) Sanjay Kumar Sinjgh jSon of ^ Nandan Singh, aged about 2& years, R^iQtr No.503, l^partmenfa^^O^ Vishram Pur ColHery, RS Vishrampur, Tahisil Surajpur, DistnctSurgyja(CG) (Owner) MiscelIarieousaDDealUflde^iSection^73Qfth^lVlotbr VehiclesAct.1988 1 Presenf: Shri Ashpk Kyrnar ShukJa and IShri Atanu Ghoshi, leaFnedicbunselifortheapp^llahtil ^i " s-jUl..!...;..,. ., .^ ORDER (5th August, 2010) ^ ^< The following order j of the Court was passed by RajeevGypta, CJ, j The defaylt pQinted|ou( bythe Registry has already t?een made good by the appellant by filingj an applfc^ton for l^^il:!^.' ii-^^ condonationofthedelayi^ffli^theappeal.j; i;.': •,;.'J..S1 •'•,... :...•••;. ••^.^:'. •••'..".-'.Y'' ';.-'1^ .•1 ••,•.:•. 2) Learned cQunsel for jthe appellant are heard on^ t •'l'/' • '•':."'ii\r application forcondonatiortQf{thedetayinfil|ngtheappeal. 3) Qn due cpnsiderali<>n of the subTriissions of learned oounsel for the appellant jand the grounds takeq in the 1 ''':'': '•' ; './.'-'"'.-'''; ^•' ''.'•;''.- ;- 'r' -!'.' applieation, we are satisfied fhat the appellant has succeeded in :11;;'-^;;;^'':1':':^ l; shc)wingsuffiaei^causeforll|ectela^infilin|^ 4) The apllication fbr cpndonation of ttte ctelay, therefbre, is allowed arKl the delay of Qyays jn^^^^^^fi condoned. ^^^^^^^ ^ j 5) Learnedtounselfortlieappellantareiheardonadmission.^ 6) The appellant/ claimant is seeking jenhancemeDt of the compensation awarded Isy Ihe First Additipnal^^^ M Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Di^rict Surguja; (for short '^ Tribunal')videawarddated 01-04-2010; ^ No.131/2005. i 7)^ A^ iryured Siwani Kujur, a^irl aged about sixyearjs byfi^^ petJtionynderSectipn16©oftheMotprVehiclesA(^ father Ghandel KumarKii^ur/fo^^ •:-3^ j-s ! : j m'} the motor accident on 16-05-2005, theTribunai awarded a total sumofRs.25,OQO/-ascompensatioh. 8) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla ^ (^unselTorthe^appe11antveh|nrtehtlyarguedthattheTrit3y^^ erred in awarding lowc^mpen^ation QfRs.25,000/- pnly,^t^ the injured liirl Siwani^^^K^ I-' ,•'•{ including fracfure. ! j 9) BeforetheT'riburial^A^ ':l-.:-"-'i.:..'ll.;^^t.:;^ examined in suppQrtoNheclaim.Forthereasonsbes.tknbw^ the claimant and herfather, no doctorwas examined beforethe Tribunal to es^ablish the naturejofthelinjurie^saiyto sustained bythe claimant inithem thoseihjuriesresultedinanypermarientdisabjlity. 10) The question whether the mediGal certjficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining th<e Doctor who issued the certificate can be rel^ evJdence for the-assessment of^he cpmpensation came up fbr ^. considerationbeforetheApexGourtintheca^eofX.P^SRTCv. P. Thimpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 9CC 189, wlierein it wasQbservedinpara6asunder:{ "6. Afterhearing leamedcounselforjth^ daimantwhomadeanattempttosypp^^ HighCOury, we find that there was n6 justjfjcatioh for tlie High Court to rely 6n the disability certificafe issuedi by Dr, Sudhakar Reddy and enhanc& the (^orriDerisationjbv ' treating thej injury as permanent disabililty to be 4S^per cent. The Hiaft Court committed airosS eFror in M 1 .1 ^l f<: overlookina the fact tftatiPr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiectecl bv ifhe Tribunal fbr ribn- examination ofthatdo<^6^ TheiTribynNJia&de^ fhe Dhvsical disabilitv S^ 115 pericent onlthe b debositiQn of Dr. K.IVI.I IVIItra and awarded a iust and fair comDertsatjon. The tiliah Court erred 1 ih disturbina Vne same arid enharicirw theicdrapehsationC -:'|..^^;lj^^'i:^t^'-;:^ we ajlowthis appeal, ^etjasKle |he impugned order and restore tl^e awatxl pf jthe ©laim& ^!.1':1''1 ;1'-.1;-;1- :i:';^ ':,^ respondent^laimant iSiallj^edtowithdrawtheamounto^ compensation awardetf^^ b^ alreadybeen withdrawn." j \ 11)TheApexCburtjna!re©ent!diGtumin!th&case^o^^^^^^ Kumar alias Raju v. YudhvjrSjnghi and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiteFatedjthe same view with the following observatioris in para 11 : j i "11; The certificatei in qyestion jn| this ca^^^^w^ Qbtained afterlwo yeare. | It is riot known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the|hospital^^^^^ On what basis,sycM a certificate was issued two years after^heaccidentftookpJaceisnotknown.Theauthorbf the said certificate had not beeniexamiriedy^JJnles&^^^^ .^..'-^;^'.^^.^:';..-'^ author of the certificate examined tiimseffi, it was not admissible in evictehce. Whether the disabiljtyat 60% was calculated on the basis of the Rrpvisions oFt Workmen'sCQmpensatJonActorotherwiseijsnotknpwn, It is also notknown asto whether hew|as cbmpetentto issuesychacertificate,lteveridoesn(^aptearthatt^e contentions raised befbre us had eittter ;been Taised befbre (he Tribunal orthe ^igh Court. (The Trih^ also the Nigh Court,^^^^^^ materialsbroughtorireeordtoythepartjes.lnabsence^o^^^^^^^ ^1 I'fe^1 '^^^^.^^^. f-^^-R^"-^ % any contention having ibeen raised in regard tp the applicability ofthe Wprftm^n's CompensatJon Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the 6ame, in our opinion, cannot be permjtted to be raised fbr the first 'time.",' '; .. ::: ^ ,; •"l'i:.:':,/':1",1. ;-. 1 •^.:'. - . 12) In view ofthe aboveqyoted dfete ofthe Xpex Court in the cases ofA.P. SRTC v. P, Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribyrial without examihing tRe Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensatidn in the case. 13) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensationawarded by the Tribunal. 14) The appeal filed by the iappellant/claimant fbr enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge