Ciaimant Rajendra Kumar Dubey S/o Lt. Mohan Dubey aged about 50 years, R/o Rjsaij Sector Bhliai Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Drlver/Ovvner) (Insurer) 2. Ambika Prasad S/o Lt. Shlv Charn about 58 years. R/o Qr.No.12-0, Str.8, Sector-10 Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisiona! Manager, Division Office Maiaviya Nagar, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) & Branch Office at Akash Ganga Supela Th. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Present: Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsei for the appelianf. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counse! for respondent No.2. sth The fo'lowing order of the Court was by Appellant Rajendra Kumar Dubey is seeking enhancsment of the compensation awarded by the Seventh Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award 31-01-2008, in Cialm Case No.45/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,99,000/- cfaimed by the appelSant/ ciaimant by fiilng a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28-01-2007, the Tribuna! awarded a tota! sum' of Rs.80,859/- as CQmpensatbn aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitjon tii! the date of actua! payment. 3) Learned counsei for the appellant submitted t'nat the Tribunai has erred in awarding lovi/ compensation of Rs.80,859/- only, thotigh the appeilant/ claimant sustained muitiple serious injuries incSuding fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabliity to the extent of 40%. 4) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himseif aione as AVV/1 in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the apDel!ant/c!a ima.nt, no doctor was examined before ths Tribuna! to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by hjm in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries rssulted In any permanent dlsabiiity. 5) The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribuna! without examsning the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. reported in 12 189, wherein rt was observed in para 6 as under; "6. After hearing iearned counse! for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order ofthe High Court, we find that there was no justiflcation for the High Court to rely on the disabjiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatlng the Injury as permanent disabiiity to be,45 per cent. The Hlah Court committed aross error in overiookinQ the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlficate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- sxamination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsica! disabii'tv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the , aeD5sj!lQn^of,Dr^KJ^,JV1jtra'_and,awarded_,a_!.^^ comDensaflon,_,,_The,H|ah_Coyrt,erred_jn,djsturbing_, same and enhancina the com?3ensation. Consequently, we ajiow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not atready been wlthdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of y, Yudhvir another; reported In 7 reiterated the same view with the foliowlng observatlons In para 11 : ."11. The certlflcate in question in this was obtalned aftsr two years. it Is not known as to whether the Clvi! Surgeon of the hospita! treated t'ne appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accldent took place is not known. The_aythor of the sald certificate had not been examined. Unless the aythor of the certlficate examined hlmseif, it was not ^'^- %s^s^^ adjnissible in evidenc^. Whether the disabliity 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. !t even doss not appear that the contentlons before us had elther been raised bsfore the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribuna! as a'so the Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicabiiity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion; ex facie has no appiicatiQn; the same; in our opinlon; cannot be permitted to be raised for the flrst time." 7) !n view of the above quoted dicta o^ the Apex Court in the of A.P. v. P. (Supra) and v»Yudhvlr and (Supra), the medica! certificate and the disabllity certiflcate produced by t'ne cSalmant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctors vvho had issued those certificates. cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 9) T'ne fi!ed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefors; Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed. 10). No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^'^J<