^•l^,^, :K,)i;:'3fe i; ^y^^ ^^h- k^/A,L. 'r^-Y ^w/c7 ShfS^S B^B'ti^'l ^rf-^uFi^p'^EVs Than Slngh, S/o Devchand Sahu, aged about 36 years, l/o Jevertala, Post Tatenga, Tahsil - Daundilohara, PS Devri, District Durg (CG) ws^sv»v Ganssh Yadav, S/o Sudershan Lat Yadav, a( about 29 years, R/o iasantpur, Ward No.38, ?ur, Tahsil and Di Shiv Malani, S/o BP Malani, aged about 49 years, R/o Baidevbaa, iranch Manager, New fndia insurance Company Limited, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Al Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsei for the appeliant. The foiiowina order or the Court was oassed bv ^ajeev Gupta; C. Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.03 16:55:35 +0530 "ps^, ,-^-lT"^,!, •)f ':.:. " li:\ '^ s .-f igttii'iri'SffiC !|t$tgsiSi» 1-1 ff v (T" f">^-. seiiant Than Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), Baiod, District Dwg (for short 'the Tribunal') vicle award dated 21.11 .2008, passed in clalm case No. 41/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- ciaimed by the appeilanU claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, for the injuries sustained by him In the motor accldent on 28.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,600/- as compensation aiong with intersst @ 6% per annum from the date of fi!ing of the claim petitlon til! the date of f \y.\ ns\ 4. Shri Rakesh Sahu, !earned counse! for the appeltant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tcw compensation of Rs.'12,600/- oniy, v/hereas the clalmant sustained muitiple serious injuries in the motor 5. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards suffering; Rs.2,000/- towards medica! expenses; Rs towards special diet; Rs.500/- towards conveyance appeiian accident. sain ancl s,uuu,'- s.12,600./ SIUSa 1 i'hf E<£ Jss fnfssl c:Eir"t c'sf II ilwi? d iy^<^E SUEL[ Ui as compensation to the claimants. For the reasons best known to the appellanV ciaimant no (amined before the Tribuna! to establish the nature )cior of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeilant/ ciaimant in the motor accident and the Tact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. ^) q^ •^. »>.-..^ "s;_:.i J? /U^T- <. 1^>£- ' 7. The question whether the medical certiflcate produced by the clalmant before the Tribunai vi/ithout examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied uoon as substantive i'/idence for the assessment of the compensation came up consideration before the Apex Court In the case of A.P. SRTC v. in (2005) 12 SCC 1B9, 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 ofthe High Court, v/e find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the dlsability certlficate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per csnt. The_,_HLgJl Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical by the Tribunal for non- cemficate was- rei examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the__pnysicat disaDilitv 3t 15 per cent on the basis of the depo^sjtion of Dr. K.M. Mitraand awarded_a iust and_IaLr comDensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded bv the Tribunal, if st has not already been withdrawn." The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh iar Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 1) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view wlt'n the foiiowing iservations in para 11 : .^'•'nBS*a&. ^ ,/• (•""•"A ••6,l ®j -s / \.^-" .f l'i?'it;t--yiB..T.-.ifiE. 'i'^t^^^-^^- "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the CivH Susgeon of the hospita! treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took ptace is not known. The author of the said certificate had ngt been examined. Unless the •author of tn^_ certificate examined_himse]f, it was not admissibie in eyidence. Whether the disability at 60% was caicuiated 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 ralsed before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso 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 applicabi!ity 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." S. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appea! filed by the appellant/ ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation Is dismissed on mer'rts summarily, notwithstanding that it is time-barred also. _- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunilKumarSinba Judge ^' x'" s'db'b"