COUI ff WJt. lri^'°'3i^s3@ii Ur^^J'IQj ^ Sl-iQI ^^.Mrf^&I.A'T'U rki-|A1Mn@>A^irAO n\jm @L.C ^n?^i r^Mi^^i'i^, j n -^riMi^ui^^.r^.M.^ Ghasiyaram S/o Chandra Ramiahre, ^^ ^ii~-,; ;<• /sn -JU &?'^ .X^Hi^-s." fa, R/u'Vlllaye — Kapisda, Tah - Sarangarh, Distt - Raigarh (CG) KesDonaents 1 Ashwani Chandra S/'o Keshaw' Prassd Chsndrs, AQsd sbout 22 years, Caste Chandranahu R/o Vilage - Ranisagar Tah - Sarangarh Distt Raigarh (CG) (Driver) 2 Nil Yadav, S/o Dhannu Lal Yadav, Aged about 39 years, R/o V/illage Peipara, Tah - Sarangarh, Distt - igarh(CG)( tinder 173 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act. l' "Present: Shri v'ineet Kumar Pandey, counsei forthe appellant. £R 0101 The following order of t'ne Court was passed by ^.ppellant - Ghasiyaram is seeklng enhancement of the compensat'on a'A'arded bv the Additiona! Motor Accident Clsims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (for short 'fne^ Trlbunal') vide award dated 29.06.201D, passed in Claim Case No.08/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,16,423./- daimed by the appeliant/ciaimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 21.01 .2006, the Tribunal awardea' a totai sum of Rs.25,000./- as compensatlon along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of f'ting of the c!aim petition till the date of actual oavment. 3) Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, leamed counsei for the appe'llant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has .erred in a'warding 'iovv compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellant' claimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciudinc fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabiiJty to theextent of40%. 4) For t'ne reasons best known to the appellanUclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabtish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by ths appellant' ciaimant in^the motor accident and the fact that those Injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 5') The a.uestion whether the medlcal certificate Droduced bv the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor w'no issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment. of th.e compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. r, rej was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counse! for the respondent- ciaimant w'no made an attempt to support the order of the Hlgh Court, we find that there was no justification for the 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 High Court committed aross error in overiookina the fact tnat Dr,,Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non- ixaminatign of t'nat doctor. Ths Tribynal has determined the.physscal disability ai 15 per cent_on the_basis,^f the de.oosltion of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation._The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the comoensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the awa.rd of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if if has not aireadv been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar allas Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, report.ed in (ZOOB^ 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view v/ith t'ne foiiowlm observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case was • obtained after two years. It is not knov/n as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospita! treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accldent took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certlficate examlned himseif. it was not admissibie in evidence. VVhether the disability at 60% was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions or the Workmen's Compensatlon Act or otherwise is not known. !t 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 eit'ner been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribuna! as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brouaht on record bv the Darties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex fac.ie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permltted to be rassed for the first time." 7) The medical certificate and the disability certlficate produced by the claimant berore the Tribunal without examining the doctors who had issued the said certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court In the cases of A.P. il Reddy (Supra) and Kumar ai'ss Raj' dhvir Singh and another (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. i) Vv/e, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. )) The appeal flled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is Hable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summariiy. __. Sd/- ChiefJustiee Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^o^"1