.-ff"1":^.,.-- ,*t?S-CT€~^ f ^ "^ '%. s' fc^::.—. l I ^'3a S A ^. 'y / vs. "^^fv ^ 1\ ;{aiman1 Mi'anteen Bai Sahare, W/o Shersin.gh Sshare, 50 .Kumharpara, (CG) years, R/o Lai ir. ni ^^ I hatta, [3f Ashok Upadhyaya, S/Q Shri G.K Upadhyaya, 26 yrs, R/o Tekarkuti, CSEB Colony, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) • Subash Mitra, S/o Shri Vyas Mitrs, 40 years, R/'o Mandirpara, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (CG) The United India Ins. Co. Ltd., throu.qh: iranch Manager, Anupama Tal Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) \- 'nt: ^ S! •i Prafu! >eliant. ^harat, learned counsel for the f7sh TFhe following order of the Court was passed by the appeliant is ation of the delav Shri Prafu!! Bharat, learned counse! heard on I.A.No.01/2010, a petition for condon in filing the appeal. ^"^ ^ fc^. -4' 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the ipplication, we succeeded in showina sufficient cause for the deiav in filina the appellant and the grounds taken in ths are satisfied that the appeilant/ciaimant has 3) !.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fiiin$ the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsei for the appellant is heard on admlssion. i) Appellant - Miianteen Bai Sahare is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded fcy the Third Additionai Motor Accidem Ciaims Tribunai, Jagdalpur, (for short 'the Tribuna!') vlde award dated 19.01.2010, passed in Claim Case No.73/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,32,000/- claimed by t'ne appelianfclaimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor sccident on 03.01.2005, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1,05,331/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition ti!i the date of , actual payment. 7) Shri Prafuli Bharat, learned counsei for the appeliant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,05,331/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiole serious iniuries inciudina fractures in -^ .< the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of60%. s) For the reasons best known to the appeliant / claimant, no doctor was examined befors the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to ha'/e been sustained by the appe'ianV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiilty. ?) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunsl wlthout who issued the certlficate 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 v. P. Thlrupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 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 that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the Injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Coyrt_committed gross error in overlookina.the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medica! -cert'ficate was reiected, by the TribynaL for non- examinatifin^Lthat doctor._J'he Tribynal has determined the phvsical disabiiitv at 15 per cent on the basls of the deoosition of_Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing ihe compensation. Consequently, we a'.iow this aDpeal, set aside the imouaned order and ..•l-^.^'i%> ^. \. %^: restore the award of the Ctaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribuna!, if it has not already been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum i" the case of Rajesl Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated thesame vlew with the followim observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case vi/as obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital freated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate was issued two years after the accident took p'ace is not known. The author of the said certificate_had not .been examined. Unless the author of the_certificate examined himself, it was not admissibls in evidence. Whether the disabilitv at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othem'ise is not known. is also not knov/n 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 bsfore the Tribunal or the Hiah Court. The Tribunal as a!so the Hlg.h Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brouaht on record bv the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act whic'n, in our opinion, ex facie has no applicatson, the same, in our opinion, cannot bs permitted to be raised for the first tims." ^ss&' ^'.^•^^. /y^ \.%hJ^/ ''%s£,<SSi'3'' fS'!-f'-°&^S '~ 115 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 alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical ceri:ificates produced by the appe!!anVclaimant before the Tribunal 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 flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 13) The appea! fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summarilv., Sd/- Chief Justice subbu 'd/- R.N. Clandrakar Jidge