::V . t .V. U' ^ ^/A^f^"1*""''-'''- Oivision IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fONO. ^fi4 /2011 APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT /' ^\^>'^i.. .^y^^ -^ ^^y.^ f^'^:av .^°\^' A^. RESPONDENTS / NON-APPLJCANTS ^Mohan Lal Sahu S/o. Chaitram Sahu, aged about : 32 years, R/o. Village : Ranigaon, Police Station : Baradwar, Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.6.). Present R/^>. Jhopdi Budhwari Bazar Korba, Tahsil & District; Korba (C.6.). VERSUS Ip- Raj Bahadur Patel S/o. Dadu Lal Pate, aged i^ about : 28 years, R/o. Village + Post : Dhamma, Police Station : Chhurhat, District : Sidhi (M.P.), Present R/o. Private iSlobal Ltd, Through : PIL Champa, bistrict : Janjgir-Champa (C.6.). (ORIVER OF THE VEHICLE WWA N0. C6-11-BA-0340 H.6.V. 321, 2], M/s. Private Slobal Limited, Through : PIL Champa, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.(5.) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE HYWA N0. CG-ll-BA-0340 H.6.V. 321) 5] Aashish Nirmalkar S/o. Baleshwar Nirmalkar, aged about ; 35 years, R/o. Aawas No. S.F.452, C.S.E.B. Colmy, Korba tEast), Tahsil & District; Korba (C.6.). ' (DRIVER OF THE MARUTI VAN N0. Ce -12/7959) 4] Smt. Asha Vishwakarma W/o. A.K. Vishwakarma, aged about : 32 years, R/o. Aawas No. N.C.52, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba (East),Tahsil <& District: Korba (C.6.). (OWNER OF THE MARUTL VAN N0. C6 -12/7959) 5] National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office : Navin Bazar, Phool Chowk, &.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil <& District : Raipur <C.6.). (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE HIWA TRUCK). APPEAL UN&ER SECTIONT73^0F MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ^ <°""'". I '"--^Sfe^ "y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 904 of2011 Appellant Claimant Mohan Lal Sahu s/o Chaitram Sahu, aged about : 32 years r/o Village : Ranigaon Police Station : Baradwar, Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir - Champa (CG) Present r/o Jhopadi Budhwari Bazar Korba Tahsil & District: Korba (CG). Respondents 1 Non-applicants VERSUS Raj Bahadur Patel, S/o Dadu Lal Pate, aged about 28 years, r/o Village + Post : Dhamma, Police Station : Chhurhat, District : Sidhi (MP) Present r/o Private Global Ltd., through : PIL Champa, District Janjgir - Champa (CG) (Driver of the vehicle Hywa No.CG- 11-BA-0340HGV321) M/s Private Global Limited, through PIL Champa, District : Janjgir - Champa (CG) (Owner of the vehicle Hywa No.CG- 11-BA-0340HGV321) Aashish Nirmalkar, s/o Baleshwar Nirmalkar, aged about 35 years, r/o Aawas No.SF 452, CSEB Colony, Korba <East) Tahsil & District : Korba (CG) - (pjwer of Maruti Van No.CG- 12/7959) Smt Asha Vishwakarma, w/o AK Vishwakarma, aged about 32 years, r/o Aawas No. NC 52, CSEB Colony, Korba (East) Tahsil & District Korba (CG) -. (Owner of Maruti Van No.CG- 12/7959) MAC No. 904 of 201 1 5 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office : Navin Bazar, Phool Chowk, GE Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District: Raipur (CG) (Insurer of the vehicle Hiwa Truck) Memo of appeal under Section 173 oi^Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri PK Patel, counsel for the appellant. ORDER •rd (23r°August,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri PK Patel, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A.No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby cohdoned. 4) Shri PK Patel, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/claimant Mohan Lal Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the MACNo.904of 2011 Tribunal') vide award dated 10.03.2011, passed in Claim Case No.45/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.10,32,112/- claimed by the appellant/ daimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri PK Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,000/- only though the appellant /claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident and spent substantial amount on his treatment. 8) From para 6 of the impugned award we gather that the claimant did not examine any doctor before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether th& medical certificate produced by the claimant before the trfbunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratioh before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. ,,^^..- \,. ^^y1 ''^.•-•^ "'^ ..-^ '"':fss-'ss"^y' MACNo.904of 2011 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 enhanc? the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Couri: erred in disturbina the same andenhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. 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. It 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 MACNo.904of 2011 author of the certificate examined himself, Jt 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. It 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 record by the parties. In absence of 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." 11) The medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Couri: in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, thgrefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by th6 Tribunal. 13) The appeaL- filed <-by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice SAI- R.N. Chandrakar Judge w^