HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeal (C) No. 985 of 2011 Appellant Claimant Sohanlal Nishad, aged about 38 years, s/o Mahettar Nishad, r/o village Goinda, f^ost Chhatera, thana Arang, tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1 Ishwar Ram Sahu; aged about 32 Non-applicants years, s/o Anand Ram Sahu, r/o vill. Bhurka, Champaran, post and thana Nayapara, Rajim, tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Driver of the vehicle 2 Smt. Karuna Tiwari, w/o Shri Ramesh Tiwari, r/o Mahamayapara, Arang, Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of the vehicle 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No.1, Madina Manzil, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Insurance Co. of the vehicle. IVIiscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri S.K. Guha, counsel forthe appellant. —fi-—. ORDER (23"'September,2011) MACNo. 985 of 2011 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant isheard on IA No.1/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 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) IA No.1/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filingthe appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri SK Guha, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/ claimant Sohanlal Nishad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.01.2011, passed in Claim Case No. 103/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.16,50,000/-, claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for thg injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.08.2009^ the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,26,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. .-£fs!CTV^ ^^w. ^ E< 'sssesss^ s 'T"'~~'~l J w^y ..^-^•" "^S&SfS'1-^ MACNo. 985 of 2011 7) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 8) From para 9 of the impugned award, we gather that the claimant, for the reasons best known to him, did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal foi; establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the 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 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 find that there was no justificatiQn for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy andenhansethe compensation by treating . the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overLookinfl^he fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal ,/ MACNO. 985 of 2011 has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensatiQn. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Gonsequently, 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 connpensation 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 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 certificate 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 evidence. Whether the disability gt 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not kflown. It is also not known as to whether h%,-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 Jribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by MACNo. 985 of 2011 si[bbu the parties. In absence of any contention having been Taised 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 for the first time." 11) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had jssued those certificates, 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), 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/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^"~