HIGH GQURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH A? EELA$PUR BHViSmN BENQH CGR£M HGN’$LE SEER? RAJEEV $UPTAy C‘Jn EGN’BLE $HR§ SUNIL KUMAR $ENHA, J‘ Misa‘ £1ppea£ we. $§5 a? 2€m$ AmaEEam : Ku. Pooja aged abou€ 8 years, Dfs Arun Ciaimam Mahar, Being Minar through her Father Sm ArunzvMahar R/o GE. Road, Near Gurukripa, Distt. Rajnandgaan. VERSU$ §®5§wnde§§§ ’E Dinesh Chandra aged about 54 yeam, Eriver a Qwna S/o BB. Pant) R/Q Adamh Nagar, Thana Padnabpur Tahsn and Distt. Burg. The New india A$$urance Co. Ltd, Thmugh Branch Manager, Office, in {rant of Project Automsbile Bhirai, Tah. and Distt. Durg. Memaraméum 0f aggea§ undar Secmm W3 a? the Matur VehrcEes Act “$83 ~ Branch Pre$eni : Shri Punee’c Ruparel, counsel for the appenant. Shri Anand Gupta, couneel for respondent N02. QWER (1e‘h August, 2cm) The renewing order of the Court‘ was passed by Rejeev Gupta, CrJ‘ Learned munsei for the parties are heard on MCP No.1183/2006, a perition for condonation of deray in filing the appear 2) On due oonsiderai’jon of the submissions of iearned counsel for ihe parties and the grounds taken in the appiioaiion, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient - cause for the delay in filing the appeal. nd @ h). 3) MCP No.1 183/2006, therefore, is aHowed and the deiay of 30 days in Wing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) \ Shri Puneet Ruparei, {earned counset for the appeHant is ‘hegm on admiaaaion. 5) The appellant/claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Rajnandgaon (f0? short "ihe ’ Tribunai’) vide award dated 03.02.2095. 6) AS against the compensation of Rs.3,43,000/~ ciaimed by appeiianil claimant KuPooja, a minor girt, aged about 8 years by fiitng a oiaim petition under Section 165 of the Motor Vehioies Act through her father Arum Mahar for the iniuries sustained by her in t‘ne motor accident on 30.092000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,QQO/- as compensation along with interest (65), 6% per annum from. the date of tilino or' the claim petition till the date of aotuai payment 7) Shri Puneet Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemehtty argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs5,000/— oniy. 8) The Tribunal treating the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident as simple in nature awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards medioai expenses and Rs.t,00D/— towards conveyance. Thus a totai sum of Rs.5,0uD/— was awarded as oornoensation to the oiaimant aiong with interest @ 6% per Emnum. ( W( rs—i K z’ 9) For ihe reasons best known t0 the appeliant! cfaimant, ancé her fafher, no doctor was examined before the Tyibuna! for eetablxishéng the nature 9f the injuries said ta have been sustained by ihe a;3pel!aml daimant and the fectthat those in§uries resuiied in any permanent disabiJity. 1G) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Deetor who issued the certificate can be relied upoh ae eubstanttve evidence foa' the aeseesment of the compensetien ceme up for consideration befere the Apex Court in the caee Gt AP: SR'm v. P. Thimpet Eitee'ey tepeitect in t2$§5§2 t2 Sgt; 139, wherein it was observed in para 6 es under : 6 After hearing teamed counsei for the reeeondent- cieimant who made en attempt to support the order of the High Court; we find that there was no juetifieation for the , High Court to reiy on the dtsebiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhekar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the intury as permanent disebiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hicth Court committed dross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physical disability at ”i5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbind ‘the same and enhancing the comoensation. Consequently, we ailow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaime Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to g»,. Withdraw the amount of compenaaation awarded by the TF§bunaL if if has no% aiready been withdrawn.” M) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajash homer aitas Reju v. ‘t’ucihtrtr stngh and another, reported in Qwg) 7 Sm? 3%, reiterated the same View with the foliowing ebeervaiione in para 11 : “1 1. The certificate in question in this cese was obtained after two years. it ie nei known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appettant. On what basis; such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piece is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certificate examined htmseif. it’was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disability at 6Q% was catcutated on the haste 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. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. “the Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the matertais brought on record by the earttes. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the apoticabiiity of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, En our opinton, ex facie has no apoiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” t2) in view ot the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of APVSRTC v: P. Thtwpat Redoty (Supra) and Rajesh hunter aitas Ratu v. Yudhutr $tngh and another (Supra), the medioat certificates produced by the appeiiantfciaimant before the Tmauna; without examining the Doctom who had isaued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of thecompensation in the case. 13) We, theiefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat. 14) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby padma dismissed summatilyi Sd/— Sd/— Chief Justice i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge