HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2006 Appellants ‘ 1. Sakalsay, S/o Charan Singh, Caste — Claimants Gond, Aged about 25 years, Occupation - Agriculture & Carpenter, R/o Village Gangauti, P.S. & Tahsil 'Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2. Arjun, S/o Harishchandra, Caste: Gond, Aged about 26 years, Occupation — Agriculture, Resident of Village Bhavrahi, P.S.rf & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C:G.). VERSUS Sheshlal @ Subelal, S/o Anandram, Aged about 26 years, Caste- Gond, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Gangauti, P.S.. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C‘G.). 2 Somarsay, S/o Nemunram, Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service, R/o Village Pandavpara, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CIG.). 3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Respondent Non-applicants g Memorandum of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor ' Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3. \ Order (02“ July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P.No.19/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeaL 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. M.C.P.No.19/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5. Appellants/ claimants Sakalsay and Arjun are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Surajpur, District Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.28/2004. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by appellants/ claimants Sakalsay and Arjun. respectively by filing a joint claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 28.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.24,500l- and Rs.4,000/- as compensation to claimants Sakalsay and Arjun, respectively, along with interest @ 6% per "x annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. \7. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in aWarding meager amount of Rs.24,500/- and Rs.4;000/— to the appellants/ claimants though they suffered multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellants] claimants, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellants/ claimants 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 v. 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 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 per cent, The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy’smedical cert‘ icate s re'e te t T‘ nl for n- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has detennined the Qhysical disabilitx at 15 Qer cent on the basis of the degosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comgensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunat. 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 alias Raju v. 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. lt 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 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 certificate. lt 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 materials brought on recerd by the parties. ln absence of 11. ln 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 certificates produced by the appellants/claimants before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. any contention 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 for the first time." 12. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summaLHL, Subbu 5d!— Sum‘ Kumar Sinh§ Chief Justice JudQe Sd/—