HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV QUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 464 of 2007 Appellant : Dilip Jha, S/o Ramdev Jha, aged about Claimant 22 yrs, R/o. Sahdevpali, Kabir chowk, (Chhatmuda), Tahsil & P.S. Raigarh, DistrkA Raigarh (C.G.) Respondents 1 (Non-appticants) VERSUS Chandrashekhar Chowdhary, age 27 yrs, S/o Gyaniparasad Chowdhary, R/o. h^nhar Chowk, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Matador No. C.G.04/ZB/2045) Samir Ganguly, age 33 yrs, S/o. Shankar Prasan Ganguly, R/o. Anand Nagar, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) (Ownerof Matador No.C.G.04/ZB/2045) The New India Insurance Com. Ltd., Divisional Offlce at Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Com. of Matador NO.C.G.04/ZB/2045) Memorandum of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehiclesAct.1988 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, leamaJ counset forthe appellant. None for respondentsNo.1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. QRDER (01st September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 'ft. Leamed cmjnsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2007, an appliration for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufRcient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A.No.01/2)07, therefore, is atlowed and the delay of five days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant Dilip Jha, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor /tecidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short the Tribunal') videaward dated 25.11.20C®,passed in Claim Case No.22/2006. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.t4,10,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by fding a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.17,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cilaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has errad in awarding low ^ompensation of Rs.17,000/- onty, though the appellanV claimant •:.<<-SS li ^ sustained muftiple serious injuries including fractures In the motor accident, resulting in permanent disabiltty to the extent of 30%. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ clatmant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeltant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9. 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 evtdence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respwident- 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 rely onthe disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabitity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certiflcate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phreical disabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and tair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina 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 i£"La.'""<•-. f • 1':^ ^^ , ^ .'^^g^^a^ ^. l.:, 1 .^J' Wi"^ withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, If it has not already been withdrawn." 10. 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 wrth the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certiflcate in question in this case was obtamed after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certiflcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certiflcate examined himself.it was notadmissibte jn evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions oftheWorkmen'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 rEdsed 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 Compenation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannqt 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 Rsgesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certiflcate and the disability certiflcate produced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examining the sr" J!(; '--^.'T. -i€ S <i? Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation In the case. 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismtssed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi