coMM; ‘HON’aLE SHRliaAJ§Ev;G,uPTA,c.J.-; } rHoN’BLHRi;RANGNATHCHANDRA. Misc. Ag ”g1 éhmb; 36 of 23004 Praikash Balwanir S/o Sri Asho ‘ kj alwa'nif ,, aged abog - 19% :xye‘avrs ocwpati'oni Hosiery Busines$, R/ C/1 65;, :Shailendra Nagar,‘ :i Raiur, ‘Ta’hsil '& Distt. Raipur,‘(C.G. Aggeué :Claimafn ‘vERsus uktaji awru /oj Sr Kawru G , ayakwad,; occupation . Truck Driver /q Bombay Transpprtp Trans’ort R p Nagar, ‘Tantibandh, Raipur (CLG.) Bhu D t Ch‘ag o } Regpoédent on-applicar)i an as Ganpa VVattr ccupation Truck ‘Owh‘e'r’, Rio Bombay Transport, ‘Transort’‘a‘gar‘ antibandh, Raipur, as an Di$ttr ‘f aipur(C.'. Company ne Ga iséeiianédu I ogo‘n :17:3;¢fctlnembtbi_ ‘ " '31[Vehicles-iActg‘1'9V8g1‘ V ' ‘ " EsKAR,J & I B t ; ‘ q p ) m t M K S i § Nts k ) i i pgN, T Thil q RG) 1 ‘ e Pu in; (V; .‘i: ,7 7.. Ms ri . 2! ‘4 The following order of the Court was passed by Raje'ev Gupta, C.J. Appenant — Prakash Balwani is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 27-09-2003, passed in Claim Case No.05/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,75,000i- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05-05-2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1‘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. 3) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant l vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellanti claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 — New India insurance Company Limited, on the‘ other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimant did not sustain any such injury which could have resulted in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded \ by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and . circumstances of the presentcase. A Before th Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone 5) e as AW1 in suppod of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the 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. 5) ‘ 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 fer 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‘s medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for none examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a jgst and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and The restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. ‘ respondent—claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 7) 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 ’Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. 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. Uniess the . ' author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissibie 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 aiso 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 Tribunai 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.” 8) in 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 e * "T‘ x t: medical certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, 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 awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal tiled by the appellant/Claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is subbu hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. f 1,. laa Sd/- 1' j ‘ jxRLIiqlcttandrakar K Sd/- Judge Chief Justice f? , , ,. ,.