^v> v Ciaimant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DIVISIONBENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc.ADDea! fC). No.3 of 2010 Deepak Kumar, S/o Hari Prasad Kurre, Aged about 18 yeas,R/o Vill Mudhpar (Khisora), Thana Nawagarh Distt Janjgir - Champa (CG) 1. Reshamlai Kurre, S/o Sri Mahattar Non-applicants Ram Gendle, aged about 28 years, R/o Vill. Limtra, Matwari Para, (DarrighaS) Thana Masturi, Dist Bilaspur. 2. Jawahar Lal Gendle S/o Sri Mahattar Ram Gendle, R/o Vill Limtra, Matwari Para, (Darrighat) Thana Masturi, Dist Bilaspur 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager Branch Office Korba, Distt Korba (CG) Miscellaneous appeal U/s 173 of the Motor VehiGlesAct 1988 Present: Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, counsel for the appellant. ORDER ith (11mJanuary,2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. •Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, iearned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, anapplicationforcondonationofthe delay in filing the appeai. 2. On due consideration of thesubmissions of learned counsei for the appellant and the grounds taken in the IBI^ES 1 ^ ./31'- applieation, we are satisfied that the appeliant hassucceeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A.No. 1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the deiay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Valbhav Goverdhan, tearned counsel forthe appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant—Deepak Kumar is seeking enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by Second Additional Motor Acddent Ciaims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No.53/2009. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- ciaimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.09.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.10,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Vaibhav Governdhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 10,0007- onlythough the appeltanVclaimant sustained muitiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 8. For the reasons best known to the appeliant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ y ui psyodsj '^S4ioue pue yBuis JiAypnA "A nfey seiie jeiunx qsafey p eseo QIQ ui uinpip IUSQSJ e ui ijnoo xsdv siii 'O I. ./uMejpqiiM uasq Ape3J|e }GU sei4 ij i\ 'ieunquj. syi Aq pspjeMe uoiiesuBdLuoo piunouiB syi MejpqiiM 0} p9 o||e si lueLUieio-iuepuodsej 9L)i 'ieunqyi suureio sqi jo pjBMe 3i)t ejotssj pye jspjo p3u6ndLU! sqt epise }as 'iesddB siy} AAOIIB SM 'Aiiusnbssuoo •uoBBsusdiuooe^} DUjoueque pue siues aqi ouiqjntsip ui PSJJS ijnoQ ^SIH 3t<l 'uoitesusdLUOO JIBI pue isni e pspjBMe pue ejiji/v 'W)\ "-IQ P uoitisodsp ayi jo siseq 9L|t uo »U90 jsd 91. ie Aijiiqesip leoisAqd 94} psuiLujeiap sey leunqul'sqi Topop^eyno uopuiLuexe -uouJoJiBunqul-^qi—^q-p3p9laJ SBAA "siBoyipeo leoipauu s.Appey Je>iBqpns '^Q ieLin3E}^Lji bTij>j6op3Ao u; jojjs SSOJ13 psyiujiuoo ynoo IJBJHBL|I 'tuso jsd st? sq o} Auiiqesiplusueiujad SB Ajnfui 941 BU!}BSJI Aq uo»Bsu3diuoos4ieoueyue pue Appsy je>jB4png 'JQ Aq psnssi sieoyiyso At!|iqBS!p sqi uo A)aj 01 ynoo L)B!H sqt joj uoiieoi^tsnf ou se sjsiji }eqt puy BM 'ynoo L|B!H sqi p jspjo sqi yoddns 01 idLueye ue speiu OLIAA IUELUIBIO -tuepuodssj 341 joj |esunoo peujes] BuueeM JBUV '9» : jspunse g Bjed ui pSAjssqo SBM 1; uisjsyM'esi. OOS Zl.tSOOZ) "! psyodaj'Appay |Bdnjiqi •d •A oiys 'd'V jo sseo 34} ui ynoo xedy 841 ejojsq uoiiejepisuoo jo^ dn 8LUBO uoijesusdLuoo siji jo tuSLussesse 941 jo.1 eouspiAe SMlue}sqns se uodn pei|3j sq ueo sieoyivso "8M1 p8nssioL|M JO)OOQ 94} BUIUIUUBXS ino^i/A leunqui 34^ sjojeq lueujiejo 34} Aq psonpojd aieoyiijso leoipsuj ei)} jeqiey/w uoiissnb siji •6 •Ai!|!qES!p lueueiujsd Aue ui patinsej seynfui ssoqi }BI|} pej eqi pue luspiooe JQ}OU 31)} ui IUELUIEIQ •y' ,./^ K'B Hn" • B \]Mflll B; I• A ^ ^ (2008) 7 SGC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after twoyears. It is notknown astowhether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basig, such a certificate was issued two years after the aecident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examinedhimself.it was-not admissible in evidence. 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 asto wheth.er he wascompetent to issue sueh a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us hadeither been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the 1-ligh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of theWorkmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion,cannot be permifted to be raised for the firet time." 11. In view of the above quoted cf/cte 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 certificate produced bythe 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 fited bv the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice ^subbu Sdl- RN.Chandrakar Judge 111 II