,':£^^^S:^ L^" ;?.^. ,f .^^ SL •^iS&% 1 °i'y"'j s lit '^';f.s^/<<~ "i:li'ZEi|^ Sl !A, Clslmant Madhoram Nagwanshi s/o Kawara Nagwanshi, age 27 years, occupation Lakadhara, R/o. Rampur, Tahsll and district Raiaarh C.G. ihunshwardas s/o Sukhdeo Das, occupation Driver, aged about 30 years, R/o Gorkha (Jindal Road), P.S. Kotara Road, Raiaarh C.G. 2. 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh. Paiuram Sao S/o Girdhari Sao (Vehicle Owner) R/o. Jute Mill Road, Sarangarh Bus Stand, Ratgarh C.G. OF Ai v -31CLES ACT. ;ent Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Shivendu Pandva, couns< for the appeliant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal respondent No.2. and Shri P :a, counsel ror The foliowina order of the Court was oassed by s;'5;, Appellant - Madhoram Nagwanshi is seeking enhancement of the compensation by the Second Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vid-e award 30,04.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.69/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,28,400/- claimed by the appellant/claimant bv filina a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident 6n 17.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum of ?s.40.000/- as compensation alona with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filina of the claim oetition till the date of actua! Amit Sharma and Shri Shivendu Pandya, ieamed the appellant vehementlv araued that the Tribuna! has / - s/ pavment. 3} Shri counse! for the appellant venemently argi erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.40,000/- oniy thougi appeiiant/ciaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability to the extentof40%. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawai and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsei for respondent No.2 - the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compen^'ation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in-tlae facts and circumstances ofthe present case; 5) Before the Tribunal, the ciaimant examined himseif alone as AVV1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the '^. appeiianV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to [y1 prove the number and nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimsnt In the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 6) The question v/hether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunai without examinina the Doctor who issuec! the certificate can be.relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration )efore the Aoex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v; P. Thrupal Reddv, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as untier: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support t'ne ordsr of the Hiah Court, we find that there was no iustification for t'ne High Court to reiy 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 Hjsh Court cpmmitted aross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate was reiectea by tne.Tribunai foLnon-examination of that doctor. Tne Tn'Dunal has determjned the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basisof the deposition oLDr. KJV1. MJtra and awarded a just and fair compensatiQn^ The_ Hiah Court ina the same and enhancina compensation. Consequentiy, we aliow this appeat, set iside the impuaned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to vivithdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it 'nas not atreadv been'withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar Raju v. Yudhvlr 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 vears. !t is not known as to whether the Civi Suraeon of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On v/hat basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certjfjcate had not been__examlned. Unless the author of tne.certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in eY[cience. Whether the disability at 60% vi/as caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. |t is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a csrtificate. 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 brouaht on record by the parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in reaard to the applicability of theVVorkmen's Compensation A.ct vi.'hich, in our opinlon, ex facie has no application; the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be ralsed for the first tlme." 8) The medicai certificate and the disability certificate produced by the •claimant before the Tribuna.i without examining the d' who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. (Supra) and Ralesh y 'icta another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 9) We, t-herefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeai filed by the appeilanfc/ctaimani for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge