HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Gajanand Sahu, S/o Mot! aged about 34 years, R/( Newadha. Poiice Station Sal- Village ^.f^y, S*t-t 1. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Motiram ?ahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village- Newadha, Poiice Station-Newra, District-Raipur (CG) Driver 2. Chintaram Sahu, S/o Motilal Sahu (Sao, R/o Newra, Poiice Station - Newra, District-Raipur (CG) Registered Owner 3. The Baja] Alllanz General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shiv Moha" i'nawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, iaipur, Tahsil & District-Raipur (CG) Insurer ^emorandum of aooeal under Section 173 of the Nlotor iii a I|T PrC;0^i H S'nri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned. counsel for the appeii ?ih e followlna. order of the Court was passed t Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on l.A.No.! ilinatheaDDeal, ;/2010, a petition for condonation 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 appetlant/clasmant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the 3) I.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fi!i the appeal 4) Learr 5) counsel forthe appeliant is heard on admission. ant - Gajanand Sahu is seeking enhancement of the awarded by the 9fh Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 01.09.2009, passed'in Ciaim Case No.106/2009. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a c.1aim petition under Section 1' of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.89,2007- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date offiling ofthe ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) , Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, iearned appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribi awarding, low compensation of Rs.89,200/- appeliant/ cialmant sustained multipie serious fractures iri the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. counsel for the has erred in only though the 3) From para 9 of the impugned award, we gather t'nat no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeiiant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiitv. 9) The question whether the msdica! certificats produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examinina the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substsntive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before t'ne Apex Court in the case of reported in (2005) 12 SCC 1 CTC v. was obs.ervea in para b as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find th.at there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabillty certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. T'ne Hiah Court committed aross error in oyerlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicaj certmcate_ was ^j-ejected_bv_the_ Tribunal for non- examination ofthatdoctor. The_TribynaLhas_determjned the phvsical disabiiitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair cpmBensation^ The Hiah_Coyrt erredjn^distyrbingjhe same and enhancing t'ne compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of ..^.t'"' compensation awarded by the Trii alreadv been withdrawn." if it has not The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh lar allas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, rsported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same vievi/ with the following obseryations in para 11. : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Ci'/il Suraeon of the hospita! treated the appe'lant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place.is not known. The author of fhe said certificate had not been examinsd. Uniess the author of the certificate sxamined himse!f,Jt_was. not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basls of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 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 Hiah Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of sny contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the V^orkmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facis has no appiication, 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 in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar a!las Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examinina the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be Saken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find the compensation awarded by the 13) The appeal filed by the appel!ant/c!aimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable any scope for enhancement of Tribunal. ie< hereby dismissed-summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar subbu