^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPXiR COtam : Hea'Mfi Shri anaU.Kamar Slaliaaad Hon'ble Shrl R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. Mtsc. Aooeal No; 1129 of 2008 APPBLLANT 't*-... RE8PONDENT8 Paharurain, aged 50 yeacs son of Sfari Man^MBam Kashyap, resident of village Madanpur, tehsil pamgarh, distriet Janjgir ehaai.pa (CG) Versus 1, Rajulal, aged 26 yessa, son of SIui Punuram Sahu, reside'nt of vIBage Parsada, P.S. Kumhari, distriet Duig(CC^ F' 2. Sint. Anisha Chopra, Wife af ^ t Ranjit Chopra, tesa^akB; of Tatibandh, Raipur, aistrict Raipur(CG) 3. The New tddia Insurance Coiapany Ltd., baanGh oflBce aecoaiS. fkior, R.D.A. BuiMiag, JRaipiu-, tiistriet Raipur(CG) APPEAL UNDER 8BCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHIiCaaKaDT, 19^ ' ; : '- ': '. ''" 1 ApBeatfance: Shri Sonuiath Vcrma, counsel for fhc appeUaat ORALQRDER (27.11.2009) Per SunUKutnar Sinha, J. Heard on I.A.No. 1/2008, which is aii application for condonation ofdelay ia fiUag the appeal, According to fh.e ofBce report, the appeal is barred by 30 days oflnaitation. On due consideration of the subnussioas aiade by leamed counsel for the appeUaut, we are satisfied fhat the delay has been sufBcieafly explaiued by the appeUaat. Accordiugly, I.A.No.1/2008 is attowed aad the delay ia filing fh.e appeal is hereby condoned. ShriVermais also heard on adutission. AppeUant - Paharuram has filed this appeal uuder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancenieut of the amount of compensation awarded iu Claim Case No.54/2007 liy the Chief MotorAGcidents Glauns Tribunal, Jaajgir Chainpa on 3.3.2008. The appeUaut/clauaaat filed a claun petition, claiming corapensation of Rs.ll, 11,000/- on account of personal injunes sustained by him ia the inotor accideut on 9.5.2007 wlienlus bicycle was dashed toy the offending vehicle- Metador bearing registration No.CG 04 ZB 1910 on account of rash and negl^ent driving ofthe said vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal recorded a fiiidiug fhat the accident occurred on accouat ofrash and negl^ent driviug ofthe offending vehicle by its driver aud the appeUant sustaiued iajuries on head, back and other portions of the toody. The Tribunal held fhat fhe appelteat was working as a labourer aad hc would not be able to perform his 3 labour work for a monfh. Therefore, it awarded Rs.2603/- on accouut ofloss ofeaniuig for one month. Rs.11,390/- on account of amoiuat of treatment iacurred by the appellant aad Rs. 10,OOQ/- towards pain aad suffenags. Thus, a totalsum ofRs.23,992/-was assessed as compensationby the Claims Tribimal and an. awaid of Rs.24,000/- was passed ia favour ofthe appellaat. . The Tribunal also awarded iaterest at fhe rate of 9 % per annum 6mm. fhe date of filiag of the claim petition titl its realizatioa. Though the appeUaat/claimaat pleaded that he received inultiple serious uijuries, causing permaaent disabilily to hiin, but no Doctor was exaauned by the claimaat to provc the natuBe of iajuries or that fhe said injuries have resulted in any permanent disableinent to the claimLaitt. The question whefher the inedical certificate produced by tfae claimaut before fhe Tribunal wifhout examming fhe Doctor who issued the certificate cau be reUed upon as substaative evidence for the aasessment offtie coinpensation cam.e up for consideration before the Apex Court iu the ease ofA.I*. SJt.T.C. ».P. Thtntt»al KeddEg,_reported in. (S005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was obscrved ia para 6 as under : "6. After hearmg leamed coiuisel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support fhe order of fhe High Court, we find that tihere was no justifieation for fhe High Court to rety on fhc disabilBy certi&cate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatioa by treatmg fhe iajuiy as permanent disabilily to be 45 per cent. The Hieh Court coHUiutted gross eirpr ia pverlQokingi_Uie fact fhat Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's aiedical Gertificate was reieeted bv fhe Tribunal for non-examiuation of that doctor. Th.e Tnbunal has detenuiued the pbysieal disability at 15 per cent ott && basis offhe deposition ofDr.K.M.MitTaandawaideda iust aad fair coinTiensation. The High Court erred_ia disturbing fhe same aad eiihancme fhe comoensation. Cousequenfly, we allow fhis appeal, set aside fhe unpugned order aad restore fhe award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claunant is allowed to withdraw fh.e amount of compensatioa awareled by the Tribuaal, tfit has uot alrcadybeen wifhdrawn." The Apex Court in. a receat dictuaa in. fh.e ease of Jtafosh JKumar altas Jterfu ». yudhrir sa»Kih cmd <in®0ier.reported m (2008) 7 SCC 305. reiterated fhe saaae view with the foUowm.g observationsia para 11 : "11. The eerti&cate ia question iu fhis case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whetfaer fhe CivU SurgeQn of fhe hospital freated the appeHant On what basis, such a certificate was issued troo ycars after the accidcnt took place is not knowri. The author offhe said certificate had not been examiaed. Uniess fhe auttior of the certificate examiaed biniself, it was not adpaissible in evideiice. Whefher fhe disability at 60% was calculated ou fhe basis of fhe provisfons of the Workmen's Coinpensation Act or ofherwise is not known. It ^ also not kuown as to wlieftier he was coinpetent to issue such a certificate. It even does n6t appear fhat the contentions raised befoBe us had eililcr been raised before fhe Tribunal or the High Courfc The Tribuaal as also the High Court, fherefore, procceded .on fhe materials brought on record by fhe parties. In absen.ee ofaay coutention haviagbeen. laised itt regard to the applicabiiily ofthe Workmen's CompeasationAct which, ia our opinion, exfacic hasno appUcation, the same, ia our opiiuon, cannot be permitted to be raised for ttie first tuae." As we have already mcntioned, no Doctor was exaaamed before the Tnbuaal to prove the fact that ffae appellaat/claaaant sustamed auy penuaneut disabilily on accoitut of fhe injuries sustained by him. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court ia fhe cases ofA.P. S.K.T.C v. P. Thiruftal Seddy asd Ks^eaSt Kvaiuif elUas Rcdu V- TwMwlr Slnfih and tinotfaer (supra). the certificates produced before the Tribun.al ui abscnceofexamination of the Doetor issuing the certificate were neitfaer admlssibte in evideace nor can. be taken iato consideration as substanrtnw evidence for assessinent ofthe coinpensation iu the case. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find aay scope for enliaaceiuent ofthe coinpensation awarded by fhe Tnbiinal. The appeal filed by fhe appeUant/Claiaiant for of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- iunil KumarSinha Judse SdA R.L. Jhaiiwar e —2».