Manniiai son of Ram Awatar, aged about 35 years, Caste -— Parido, Occupation — Cuitivation, resident of viHage — Kochiia, PS Patna, Tan Baikunthpur, Distt Koriya (CG) VER3U$ “a 1. National insurance Company Limited, Through : Branch Manager, Nationai insurance Co Ltd., Korba Post Office, Ko‘rba, Distt Korba (CG) (insuier) Ramlai Jaiswai s/o Mahodev Jaiswal, aged abcui 4O yeais, resident of viiiage — Chhindiya Thana & Post — Patna, Tah Baikunihpur, Diett Kenya (CG) (Owner) Santia!’ son of Buddhu Ram, aged abaut 28 years, Occupa‘ion — Driver, Rio village - Bardiya, Thana & Post — Patna, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt Koriya (CG) (Driver) Anpeai under Section 173 of Motor Vehicie Act. 1988 Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia and Shri Atanu Ghosh, oounsei for the appeilant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with 3hri Anand GUpta, counsei for respondent No.1. Present : None for respondents No.2 & 3. ORoER {15m December, zoee) i i 1[. A L The foilowing order of the Court was passe y §Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Mannilal is seeking enhancement of the {compensation awarded by the $ixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bllaspur (CG), vide award dated 31.61.2002 passed in Claim Case No.13/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/—, claimed by lthe appellantlclaimant by Filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the‘Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor iaccident on 25.03.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/— as compensation to claimant Mannilal, along with l l l iinterest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim of l petition. i3) Shri Ashok Kumar $hukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has terredin awarding low compensation of Rs.10,090/— only,-though ithe l appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious iniuries including l fractures in the motor accident. ‘4) Shri Shreekumar Agrawat, learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the appellant / claimant could not establish that the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any ‘ permanent possibility, compensation of Rs.10,000f- awarded by " the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the T present case. / b .QZ/ 5) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself aione as AWN in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to him, l no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature l oif the injuries said to have been sustained by the l ooellanticlaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those "Furies resulted in any permanent disability. ) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the laimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who l .l issued w. 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 Vs P. Thirupal l éeddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : l “6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent — claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely Von the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the iniury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookino the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is aiiowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 73 i I I " The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raiesh ‘umar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30$, observations in para 11 : “11. The cenificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author o the rt‘f‘ e e ‘ ‘ sei " w s not admissibie in evidence. Whetherthe disabiiity at 6D% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is aiso 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 raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunai 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 appiicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 52% reiterated the same view with the foilowing .,.-.) 1, W (2/31 8) In View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the i cases of A.P.5RTc Vs P. Thirupal Raddy (supra) Raiesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medicai certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal ‘ without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, I cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the ‘ compensation in the case. We, therefore, do not find any sCope for enhancement of the ; “compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeai, filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement l of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is § hereby dismissed. i 9') 10) i i i i i i "/ il 11) No order as to costs. q Xi/e-MS’J/‘JK (I ‘i Sd/' at?» I Sunil Kumar Sinha CHIEF JUSTICE ’ ‘ T Judge ‘