/^. EV C.J. ^ 1 J. No. of 2005 Ravindra Bihari Sinha. aged about 63 years, S/o Vrindawan Bihari Sinha, R/o Qtr. No. M.1.G. 83, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG) Ciaimant •1. Raj Kumar Malik, aged' about 24 years, S/b Harekrishna h,4ailk, R/o Viilage Tadaibhar, P.S. Dharamjajgarh, District Raigarh (CG) 2. Amritiai, about 54 years, S/o Narmada Prasad Sondhia, R/o Belgarihnala, Balco Nagar, Tahsii & District Korba (CG) 3. Branch Manager, Nationa! tnsurance Co. Ltd., Korba (CG) 173 of Motor Vehlcies Act, Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri A. Dalapati, counsei for the appeiia.nt. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri RgR. Tiwari, counsei for respondent No.2. Shri Raj Awasthl, counsel for respondent No.3. |th (19tn January, The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by C.J. ..-..^-ys'-^.SSSKXBS.l WE ___:^-^2^^ Appeijant - Rayin.dra Bihari Sinha is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Addjtional Motor Accsdent Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunai') vlde award dated 30.08.2002, in Clalm Case No.42/2000. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.3,97,000/- ciaimed by ths appeiiant/claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehides Act for the injuries sustainsd by him in the rnotor accident on 02.01.2000, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annym from the of fiiing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actua! payment. 3). Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri A. Daiapati, Isarned counse! forthe appeliant vehementiy argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.25,000/- oniy though the appeilant/clalmant sustained muiSiple serious Injunes Inciuding fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent djsabj!ity to the extent of 25%. 4) Before the Tribuna!, the claimsnt sxamined hlmseif alone ^<-.^ as AW-1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to th8 appeiiant/ cialmant, no doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to estabiish the nature of the Injuries said to have been by the appdiant/ daimant in the motor acddent and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 5) The question whether the medicai certjflcate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctor ^^:-^ who Issued the .certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for conslderation before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. reported in 12 189, wherein it vvas observed in para 6 as undsr: "6. After hearing learned counsei for the respondent- cialmant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certlfEcate issued by Dr. Sudhskar Reddy and enhance the compensation by •treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error_|n overloo-king the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicaj certiflcate was rejected bv the Tribunai for non- examinatlon of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the^pjTVsjcai. disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of_the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a lust and fair co.mpensation. The High Court erred in disturbina the same asid enhanclng the compensatlon. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeai, set aslde the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribuna!. The respondent-ciaimant is aifowed to wlthdrav/ the amount of compensat4@n awarded by the Tribuna!, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court In a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh v. Yvdhvir Singh and another, reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foi!ov/ing 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 Clvli Surgson of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On lA'hat basis, such a certificate vvas issued two years after the accEdent took place is not known. The author of the said certifjcate had noLbeen examined. Uniess the author of the certlficate examined himself. , it was not admJssIbEe in evidence, Whether the disabijity at 60%' was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmsn's Compensation Actor otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to Issue such a certjficate. St even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either b^en raised before t'ne Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, thereforer proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabiiity of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no app!ication,the same, in our opjnlon, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7) !n view of the.above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the c-ases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Kumar alias Raju v. Yydhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certlficate and the disabiiity certificate produced by the appeiJant/ciaimaW before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certiftoates, cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation In the case. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensati.on awarded by the Tribunai. /^ ^ 9) The appea! flled by the appeEiant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismlssed . 10) No order as to coste_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge J'- subbu