'*<s !0! L/lffiilTISRI Driver-cum-Owner Insurer 2. T.ukaram Sahu, aged about 47 years, S/o Tansukh Sahu, R/o Viilage Navagaon, (Kandel), Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG) Kishore Jaiswani, S/o Gopichand Jaiswani, aged about 43 years, R/o Battery, lamtari (CG) Dhamtari, Distt iranch Manager, The New India Insurance Gompany Limited, Mobin Maha!, Jail Road, Raipur Distt Raipur (CG) Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appeilant. ith The foitowing order of the Court was passed by Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appeilant is on admission. ...-•.-^-'^•K: •fs^-a^ 'S K. i? 'Vy's&^ % '-- V.v-^ 2) Appellant - Tukaram Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.09.2010, passed in Claim Case No.40/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,0007- claimed by the appellant/claimant by fiting a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.68,350/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual pavment. 4) Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appeilant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.68,350/- only though the appeiiant/claimant sustained multiple serious injurles induding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabilityto the extent of32%. 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AXW1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 3) 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 ^<7, -•" ' ••••\ ^t. -...£.'^03, ? for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal leddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 Reddv and enhance the compensation bv treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The_Hiah Court committed aross errQrJn_overlookinfl the • fact that Dr. Sud_b_akar Reddv's. medicaL certificate was rejected bv ihe Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disability at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbii the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ctaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat, if it has not aireadv been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Ri Kumar ailas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported i.n (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 hospita! treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two vears 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 disabilitv at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Wbrkmen'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 Hiah Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. tn 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." 8) The medical certiflcates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctor who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupat Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh [umar allas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement 'of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation avvarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed i!y,___- Sd/'- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge <y. «-