Addinona‘l Motor Acciden‘; a\’) vide award (‘E Q I e, DO/—, cfaimed by l s urles sustained by him in the motor dad a iotal sum of Rs.3,000/- as 6_% per annum from h the claim petition was restored till ‘14) S'nri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsei for the appellant The foliowing order of the Ceurt was passed by Rageev Gupta, CA . Appellant Dayanand Deo is seeking enhancement of ihe 1; \ compensation awarded by the First ’Jaims Tribuna‘a, Surajpur (for short ‘t‘ne Tribun lafed 15.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No.23i'2061. As againsi the compensation of Rs.5,QG,G {he appeliantfcfaimant by filing a claim petition under Secllon 168 of lhe Motor Vehicles Act fof the in} :accldent, the Tribunal awar i pompensation V along Wifh . . interest @ loa§oa2ooa the date on whro Etna date of actual payment. . ntly argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low. though the appellant/claimant compensation of Rs.8;OOD/- only, sustained mult‘aple serious injuries including fractures in the motor t l aoctdent resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 39%. unsel further submitted that the appellant‘s/claimant’s Sscooter also was badly damaged in the accident. l l l i veheme Learned co 5) Shri Shailendra Sharma, teamed counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental insuTanoe Company on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimant ooutd not estabtish him tn the motor accident the fact that the injuries sustained by resulted tn any permanent disability, ‘ the compensation of i I} m;.3,0GG/- awarded by the Tribunaf is just and proper i compensation in the facts and circumstances of the pfesem case. 6) _ Shri Shrawan Agrawak, learned ccunsei for respondem No.1 also suppor‘ied the award. 7) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two Witnesses inciuding himseif (AW/1 Dayanand Dee and AW/2 Dasaraih) in sq‘ppori of his claim. For the reasons best known to the i aDbeimnt I j! / Claimant; n0 dOCtOi' was exal” med before the Tfibunai t0 ‘ establish the natiire 0f the injuries said to have been sustained by i hirin in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 8): The question Whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied ubon as substantive evidence . fori the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration be‘fore the Apex Court in the case of gRSR‘i‘C Vs Fa Thirugai Raddy reported in (2W5) 12 SCC we, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : i i l l s “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 Raddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as-permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the tact that Dr Sudhakar Reddy’s l medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal i i on the disabilityeertificate issued by Dr Sudhakar l i l l l l 1 ‘ for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physicai disabiEity at 15 per ~ cent on t‘ne basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comaensation. The High Court erred in disturbind the same and ‘ enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy; we aiiow this appeal. set aside the imouaned order and restore the award of the Crarms Tribunal Tne resoondent—ciarmant is aliowed to Withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not aiready been withdrawn.” ~ a The Apex Court in a recent dictum In the case of Rajesh Qii I KIJmar atlas Raju Vs Yudhwr $Ingh and another, reported m (2%8) 7 SCC 3G5 reiterated the same View With the foiiowmg observations in para 1 1 “11 The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two vears It is n0t known as to whether the CiVii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated 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 Tribunal or the High Court The Tribunal as also 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 tine appticability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiioation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 10) in View of the aboye quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the a“ . eases of A;P.SRTC Vs Pt Thirupai Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar a1iias: Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), the medicai i éertificate produoed'by the. appellanticiaimant before the Tribunai i Without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, i éannot be taken into consideration forzenhancemeht of the i i oompensatton in the case. 11) The disabiiity certificate produced by the appeiian‘t aiong with the appeal appears to have been issued on G7.D1.2003 i.e. after . tnore than two years of the accident which took piace on a i i i i i 7 11.2000. The Doctor who had issued the disability certificate oes not appear to have treated the ciaimantafor the iniuries i sustained by him in the motor accrdent En this View of the matter, tihe disabttity certihcate cannot be believed for hoiding that the i l h uries sustained bv the ciatmant in the motor accident resulted m 'anv permanent disability much less to the extent of 30% as certified 1m this certificate a2) Simiiariy, the damage to the appelant’s Scooter and the amount said to have been spent on its repair aiso has not been l proved by cogent and reliabie eVidence. ‘v-x i l pl 1 1 ) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancemem of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. § 14g The appeai, filed by the appeiiant/oiaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore; is liabie to be dismissed and is h reby dismissed. 15) i No order as to costs. i Sdl-