PPELLANT A I n "HI A KIT ULFHIWlHIHi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISEGN BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 8: N HQN’BLE SHRI SUML KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Anpeai No. 403 of 2W4 Amritnand Sahu, aged about 11 years minor son of An§rudh Sahu. (Appeal on behaif of minor son Amrétnand, the fathér Amrudh Sahu, aged about 42 years, S/o Mukundiram Sahu R/o ViHage - Ravan Po-Parsada TahsH Rajtm Dlst-Raipur (C G) Versus 1. 'Santosh Saihu, aged about 34 years S/o of Pratap Sahu Motorcycle Driver and Owner, near Govt. Hospital, Naya Para, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Driver and Owner). 2. The Onenta! insurance Comp Ltd Through the Drvrsronal Manager, Division Office, at Kachahari Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur (C.G.) (insurer) ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1 73 OF THE OTOR VEHICLE ACT ‘988 Smt. Som $hukia Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. RESPONDENTS s ORDER (22nd July, 2009) l he folioWing orderof the Court was passed by T k Rajeey Gupta, C.J.: l Smt. Som Shukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the application for condonation of the delay in filing the M @ 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei fer the appeiiant and the grounds taken in the app3icatiom; we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded in showing sufficient ,Icause for the detay in fiiing the appeai. 3. The application, therefore, is aiiowed and the deiay of ‘ 14 days in fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. é.- Smt. Som Shukié Sarkar, teamed counsei for the appeiiant is heard on admission. 3. i The appeiiant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Raipur (for short ’the Tribunai’) vide award dated 04.10.2(303, passed in Claim Case No‘96l2002. 6. As against the compensation oi Rs.21,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the iviotor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.15,5OD/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum fiom the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Smt. Som Shukia Sarkar, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehementiy argued that the compensation of Rs.i5,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is tooiow in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries and fractures sustained by the appeliant! claimant in the motor accident. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of @ the injuries said to have been sustained by Ehe appeHantI ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuitéd in any permanent disability. 9. The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the ceriir'icaie can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of AP. $R‘tC vs. P. Thirupai Reemy, reported in (2M5) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing teamed 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 reiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the iniury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hioh Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medicai certificate was retested bv the Tribunal tor non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the ohvsical disabilitv at i5 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. Kivi. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair compensation .The High Court erred in disturbing the same and: enhancinq the compensation. Consequentiy. we aliow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- clalmant is aliovved to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it it has not aiready been withdrawn." i0. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumat alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (26%} ? SEC: 3&5, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para i i : i l " 11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as“ to Whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiiicate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseii it was net admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caicuiated en the basis of the previsions Gt the Workmen‘s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is also net 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 Tribunai 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 t0 the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our epihion, ex taoie has no appiicatien, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised tor the first time.“ 11. in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC vs. R Thirupal Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju vs. Yuclhvir Singh anci another {Supra}, the medical certificates produced by the appeliant/ ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the comnensation in the case. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal tiled 5y the appeilant/ ciaimant for enhancement ot the compensation, therefore, is iiaiole to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sunil Kumar Sinhfl Judge \ f/s, Sd/- Sdl- Chief Justice . t