^ HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEB^ GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR ^. Aooellant/; CIaimant Respofidents: Driver Misc. Appeal No. 187 of 2008 Narendra Agrawa) s/o. Chhotelat Agi'awal aged about ^5 years, R/o. Malhar, TahsU Masturi, Djstrtot Bitespur Versus 1. Deenana»i Sahu S/o. Tlhar Ram Sahu aged about 21 years, R/o. Nohalla Laripara, Ratanpur (Laripara Chherkabgndha • Kota) Distrtet Bitaspur (C.G.) 2. Atul ShuMa S/o. S.P. Shul^i R/o. Greenpark Colony, Jarhabhata, Bllaspur 3. The Orientat tnsurance G©. t-.td. Through : Branch Manager, Braneh OfHce, Opp. High Court Klaspur Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ADpeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehieles Act. •1988 Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counseJ forthe appellant. OR0ER (19thAu9U^2010) The foltowing order of ftte Court Was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamedeounsel forthe appeltant is heard on M.C.P. No.207/2006, a petttlon for condonation of (he delay in flling the appeal. '-^.^,^ 2) On due considersrtion of the submisstons of leamed counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing suffteient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P. No. 207/2006, therefore, is allowed and the detay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Narendra Agrawal is seeking enhancemerit of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') vid®award dated 25-02-2005, passed in Claim Case No.97/2003. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.9,85,000/- ctaimed by the appellant/ claimarrt by flling a daim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehtetes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor acctelent on 09-04-2003, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,80,0007- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cteim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamed counsel for the aqapellant vehementfy argued that the Tribunat has erred 'm awapding low compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- only, ttiough the appellanV dajmant sustained multipte serious injuries jncluding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent dlsaNlity to the extent of25%. ^ ^s^. x^ '- »."[e^^ 8) For the reasons best known to ttie appeWant/clalmant, no doctor was examinred before the Tribunal to establish the nalure of the injuries said to have been sustalned by the claimarrt in the motor accident and the fact that those injunes resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The questton whether the medteal certificate produced by the daimant before the Tribunal without examintng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as ^ibstantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for eonsideration before the Apex Court (n the case of A.P. SRTG v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2008) 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 ©fthe Hjgh Court, we find thal ttiere was no justification for ttie High Court to rely on the disability oertificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as pemnanent disabllity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examinatjon of that doctor. The Tribunal has determkiect the phvsteal disabiljtv at 15 DW cent on the basis of the deDOsition of Dr. KM. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturblna the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequentty, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to wtthdraw the amount of ^-^-^ f: ^: .^s- compensation awarded by the Trtbunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Sinc^i and another, reported in f2008) 7 SCC 308, reiterated the same view v^th the following observationslnpara11 : "11. The certjficate in questton in thte case was obtained after two years. It js not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the ajapetlant. On what baste, such a certifteate was issued two years after the accident took ptace fe not known. The author of the said certjficate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certiflcate examined himself. it was not admissjble in evjdence. Whether e disabiiity at 60% was calcutated on the basis of the previsions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or crtherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was annpetent to issue such a certiflcate. It even does not appew that the contentions raised before us had etther beCT raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Trtbunal as ateo the High Court, therefore, proceeded on ttie materiate brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention havlng been raised in regard to the apptteability of the Workmen's Compensation Aet whteh, in our opinion, ex facie has no applteation, Vhe same, in our opinion, cannot be permttted to be raised for the fwst time." 11) tn view of the above quoted dicta 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 and the disability certjficate produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates.Gannot be taken into consideratlon for enhancement ofthe compen^ition in the case. 12) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensatidn awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellant/clawnant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge F