ij^ / \-<'< E Sisakhu S/o Buduram Aged about 30 years, Occupation Agriculturist & Labour R/o Viiiage Lochan P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya, Tah Kawardha, District irdham-(C.G.) Janak Ram SarfuJ S/o Bipatram sahu, Occupation Transporting R/o Tikarapara Raipur at present Address Koifari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah.Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C..G.) National Insurance Company Lfd. Through Board Manager Board Ofr'ice Akashganga Complex Supela Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Renu Kochar and Shri Ram Nivas Pandey, Counsel for the appelfant. .Shri Anand Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.2. 1'he foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Heard on admission. ->/ M.A_J^o.766/2006 \-^ 1 (2) The appellanVclaimant has filed this appeal for enhancement ofthe amount of compensation awarded in Ciaim Case No.21/2005 b.y the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), h^birdham District Kavi/ardha on 29.03.2006. (3) - of the for the which appellant/claimant fiied a claim petition under Section 166 Vehicles Act, ciaiming compensation of Rs.7,39,400/- personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, iok place on 26.04.2005. (4) Though the appellanVclaimant contended that he sustained many injuries including fractures in the motor accident and he filed various documents (certificates relating to his treatmeipt), bu{ no Doctor was examined by the appellant to prbve those documents/certificates issued in his favour. Therefore, the !earned Claims Jribunal looking to the over all evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.9584/- towards medical expenses (on the basis of receipts produced), Rs.3000/- towards conveyance and Rs.3200/- towards loss of t'wo bags of Arhar, Rs.4200/- towards Eoss of earnlng and Rs.500/- towards the expenses for fiiing the application. in this manner, the Tribunal avrarded a totai sum of Rs.30,484/- to the appellanVciaimant as the amount of compensation on account of personal injuries sustainea' bv him in the motor accident. (o) The questlon whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant' before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be re!ied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the cQmpensation carne up for consideration before th.e Apex Court in the case of A,P^^RTC_y^P._TiiiniDa] ""- '.. ' ! ! —~ fietfdfc.-re'ported i'n f2QQ5j_1^SCC_18§, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: . "6. After hearing learned counsei for ihe respondent-cfaimant who made an'' attempt to support the .order of the High Court, we find that there was no ^ M.A.Nb.766/2006 jtistificatipn toEAhe i-tigh Court to rely ,on the .disabifity certifisate.issHsd by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability tb be 45 per cent. The High Court committed ,aross. error. in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribuna! for 'non-eXamination of that doctor. TheTribuna! has dfitermined the physicai disabilfty at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deDdsition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a jyst and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbina thesameand enhancing the compensation. "^ Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allQwed to withdrav/ the amount of compensation.awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." (6) The Apex Court ina recent dictum in the easie of Rajesh i \ 7 SCC 305. reiterated the same .view with the Tollowing obsefvations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civll Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years afterthe accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the • author ofthe certiricate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was. calcutate'd on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensatlon Aet or otherwise is not known.It is also not known as to whether he v»'as competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not . appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal orthe High.Court. The Tribunal as alsothe High Court, therefore,proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absen'ce of any contention having been raised in regard .. to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act '-.-which, in our opinion, ex faciehas n6 application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." (7) As we have aiready mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the appellant/claimant I/ M.A,_No.766/2Q06 either sustained fracture or he suffered any permanent disability on aceount ofthe injuries sustained by him. (8) In view of the above quoted dicta 6f the Apex Court in t'ne cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Kumar alias Raiu v. YiidhvSr Smah and another (Supra), the certificates produced beforet'neTribunai in absence-of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate were neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. ;9) For the foregoing reasons, we tfo not find any scope for of the compensation awarded by the The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby ihyna (11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge