é? HIGH COURT CECHHATTISGARH AT BILASWJR D'V! ON BENCH CGRAM HON ELE $HRI EAJEEV GUPTA C J e . ON’BL HR SJ‘NHL KUMAR SH‘ HA J Musc. Appeal No. 599 or 20(14 Apneiiant Kumari Meena Valdh Aged About 18 yeauS Daugmu m emf vnaml’i mug“ Vaidh ReSIdent of Vlllaae Kuihadgaon Post Bhand‘iarseom P S — Pharasgaon Dist: Bastar ’ (Chhatt§sgafh) VER’sus Resgandents Sukhdas Aaed abosut 21 years Son of S'Tii Asadu RIO B la'WdnaiSEOi‘u P a — Pharasgaon Distt Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Driver of the Vehicle 2 Rampawan Jaiéwal Son of Shn Bandhu Jaiswal R idert of Village and Post - Pharasgaon Distt Bastar \Chha‘tisgarh) Owner of the Vehicle 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Thru : The-Branch Manager, Branch Office At Jagdaipur, Near Post Office Jagdaipu'r, Distt‘ Basiar (Chhattisgarhy » insarer of the Vehicle g Miscellaneous Agneai under Section 173 i1) of the Meter ‘u'ehicies Act, 1§33 Shrl Avinash Kl lViishra, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No 1 & 2 Shn Sudcep Agrawa. learned counse. for respondent No 3 V\ Present : oRDER (22nd Jaly, 2909) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MOP. No. 494/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the $ appeai. 2)j On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) ‘* ‘M.C.P. No. 494/2004, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant! claimant Kumari Meenaj Vaidh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 13.11.2003, passed in Claim Case ‘ No.1 55/2002. 6) As against the compensation ofrRs.‘5,19,000I-, 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 25.10.2001 , the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,3001- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date. of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,300/— only, though the appellant/claimant susained mulipie serious injuries ncluding fractures in the motor t t i accident. 8) For the reasons best known to the appeiiantlc'laian, no mt doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish he nate of t ur the injuries said to have been susained by he appeliant/claimant t t in he moor accident and the fact ha those injuries resuited in any t t tt permanent disabiiity. V é) The question whether the medical certificate roduced by e p th claimant before the Tribunai 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,?.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Raddy reported in (200$) 12 SCC 139, 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 justification for the High Court to rely” on the disability certificate issued by @r Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s medical cemflcate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM ivlitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbino. the same and enhancino the compensation. Consequently, we allow his appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore he award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw t r ha he amount of compensation awarded by the Tibunal, if it s not already been withdrawn.” 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir $ingh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiteraed the same View with the following 1 t bs 1 oervations in para 1 : “’l 1i The certificate in question in this case was ‘ obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether he Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appelant. On what basis, such a certmoate was issued wo ears after, the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the te examined himself, it was ‘ ence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the, prisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or oherwise 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 raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal a 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 appiicabiiity of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, x facie has no application, the same, in our opinio, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first ime.“ , .1;.§ga r s_=%§ t t i ‘ t l t y author of the certifica not admissibiein evid ov t s e n t 1'1) In View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesah Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellantlciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Eoctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. w t 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 13) The appeal fiied by the appeiiantl ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. ‘> , stu— ,, Sdl- a uc’_,_/. J e Sunil Kumar Sinhiia 5 Chief Justice Judge ’r i i i