HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJVJSION BENCH CORAIVi: HON5BLE SHRI RAJEEV 6UPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J ^^IN-1 Appellant Cjaimant ResDondents M.A.No.l83of2006 Ku Meera Sahu, D/o Tumial Sahu, aged 20 years, R/o VIHage Koyeda, Thana Kasdoi, Tahasil ~ Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Gajanand S/o shun Lal Sahu, aged 36 years (Driver) 2. Neelmanj @ Pappl Sahu, S/o Narsingh Sahu, aged 19 years (Driver) 3. Narsingh S/o Gomtichand Sahu, aged 45 years (Owner) Respondent No.1 to 3 R/o Village Koyeda Tah Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur 4 The New India Insurance Company, Branch Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur (CG) Appeal u/s173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri SK Guha, counsei for the appeitant. Shri Ashok Soni, counsel fcr respondent No.1. Shri CR Sahu, counsel tor respondents No.2 & 3. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. QRDER (9th March, 2010) The fodowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. ^ \^»* Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No.222/2006, a petition for condonation of 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 sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.22/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri SK Guha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Ku Meera Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baioda Bazar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.10.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 189/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,90,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.10.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.26,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri SK Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.26,000/- only, though the appeliant / claimant sustained multiple \1»^1^~ '^ serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8) From para 49 of the impugned award we gather that the appellant did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted Sn any permanent dlsability. 9) The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examlning the Doctor who issued the certificate 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 Vs P. Thirupal 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 flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and ^; R' enhancing 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 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 aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certiflcate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evldence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis 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 certiflcate. 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 High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contentjon having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised forthefirsttime." A 11) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma