EQH SQEER'E' OF CHFEA'E'HSGAREI A? BELQSP¥3& mWSEGN EEF$$E€ §QN;EL§ $HRI RAJEEV (Slimlé. CJ. & E ELEBI Giihii! Eii 1E ikiug E aid; éfi“i Oulvik {\JF‘VQHf‘ g§§ §'lh, ‘5: wa; A§spea§ No, 19 9f 2mg Ku. Rashim aged 4 /2 yearg. D/a Law Ra§endra Singh Kc’ihari, EVEnar, thraugh natural guardian and Eider fai’nar {gade Pam} {Eider bmt’ner of appiicant’s faihar? i {us !/r-.n' nauf‘miya Au: l Lax AK a§ I E1“ nGinaS'i HA o/Q C‘I Kanwar La Koiharf, Rm i L Raénandgaen. Tahsii arad Béstr§ct Rajnandgaon. §E$F$§E3ENT z Ahmea‘ S10 Abdui Kaywm f‘ wiuA :vwa kin oxcm 6&AAI watjmg C9m§am¥, :3 .E. i, Elwiiaé; Di$trici Burg Evam Cl’s Sieeé ranspor? Bhanpuri: B§iaspur Road, Raipur, Tami! and Di$tf€ci Raipur {Qwner Tmck Na 23 3—0571 }. $u'naii Ahmw Sic Sggir Ahmed, Rz’a Bi?a§garh, Thana Ragganj‘pur, aismct $unde¥garh {Omssa) & C/e SiaeE Trampeié Bhanpuri, Biiaspw Read; Raiam. Tami? and $§Strisf Ra§pun (Driver of Vehicie NGJTé’UGk Na. if? 233 G57? ). New £nd§a énsurance Campany Limited, Type Division 12140a, New mdia Center, 171A, Kuprej Road, Mumbai 40G G3§ ( Ensumnce Company 0f Vehicie Na MP 23B ~ GWQ Q). EUM Q? §PPE§§L UNUER SECTSQN 1?3 QF THE QTDR VEEICLES AC? ’iQ88 i‘fiEMDEQN R) @ Pi'esené : Smt. Renu Koc‘nar, ieamed counsel for the appeiian’i. Nana fer resgondents No. 1 and 2. Shré Daghrath Gupta, {earned counsel for respondent N33. @RmER ggfi .éuiyg wag} Tm foéiawmg order of the Couri wa$ passed bv Raggav Gupigg Qua: ‘z'he apgeiian? is seeking enhansemem 0f the comgensation awaréed by ihe Seccmé Additionai Motar r’iiccidem Ciaims 'Fribunai, Eurg {fm sham ‘tha Tribunaij) v§de award dated 25.08.2001, passed m Gaim Case NG.84V;Q91. 2‘ As agamgi the campen$a%ion Bf Rs.2,50,000f— ciaimed by a§geéiaai§tf ciaimant Ku. Raghim a minm’ giri aged aboet 4 “/é years. by §§§§ng a ciaim petition under Sewer; 165 of the Mekor ‘v‘ehiciee Act '{hmugh her father’s eider bro€he¥ Kanha§ya LE1, far the injwies eusmmed by her in “Ehe mote? accideni 0n14.Q?.1990, when the Maruii Car in whieh ehe wee trave§§ing with her parents, brother neier wee dashed by the of?en::fing vehicie Truck bearing regietretien NeExr’iP-233/G571, the Tribunaé awarded e tetei sum 0f S exe.2o;6f.30)— 1‘ I ee compensaimn aieng with §n€efest @ 12% per eenem from ihe daie e? ‘fiiing of ihe claim petiiion tiii the date at aetuai payment e Smt. Rene Keener, teamed oouneei fer the eppeiient vehementty aigued that the Tribune? has ened in awarding iew campensetien of Re.25,GQDfu oniy though the eppeiientl ciaimant eeietained muitipie serious injuries inctuding fractures in the metei eeeident resetting in petmanent dise‘eitity. i": £L C) $3}. u. @ For the reasons bee% known io the appeiient! ciaimaht and her father’g eicier bromer Kanhaiya Lat, no dociof was examineé befei'e the Tribuna! to estabEEsh the nature a)? the injuries said ’te have been sugtained by the appeéiam/ aiaimant m ihe mom!” acckieni and ihe fact that those in§uries resuited in any permaneni d§$e§biliiy. 5. The question whether the medisa§ certificate prcduced by ma cEimané bgfsre *Jne Tribunai withaui examining the Decior who igwed the 9ertificate can be reéied upen a$ subsianiive evidencg for ihe 3sse$sment of éhe campematiom mme up m“ consideFatisn heme ’gha Apgx Cam in the case f AP. $R‘E‘Q ve. P, Thémpei Rewl repmed in {2GQ§} 12 $Qc 13%, wherein it was abserved m para 6 ae under : “5. After hearing iea‘med counee§ fer the respondeni-c%a§mam whe made an aéitemai ta support the ofder 6f {The High Court, we find that there was ho ju$%ifica%%on for the Hégh Court to reiy on the disabilitv certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reedy anti enhance the compensaiiom by treaiihg the iniury as permanent dieabiiiiiy to be 4:3 per cent. The Hieh Couri‘ commiited gioss errof in cveriookina ihe faci that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medicai cerfificate wae rejectecé’b‘y the Tribunai fer non-examinarion of that doctor. The Tribunal hae determined the physice! dieabiiii‘y ai i5 per cent on ihe hesis 0f the dehosition ef Dr. KM. Mitre and awareee‘ a jusi ahe fair campehsafieri. The Hieh Ceurt erred ih disiurbinq the same and enhancine the compensaiioh. Consequentiy, we eiiow ihie eheeai; set aside the impugned order and restore the award of ihe Ciaims Tribuoai The respohdehr- cieiment is aiiowed io wiihdraw ihe amount or” oompeneaiion awarded by the Tribunai, if it hee not aiready been wiihdrawo.” @ @A The Apex Ccun‘. in a recent dictum in the case of Ragesh Kama? aiia§ Raga: vs‘ Ywdhvig‘ Séngh anti mathea rammed in gzagg; T $CCL 3&5; reiterated the samg View with the faiiowing observatigng in gara ii : " 11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after We years. tt is; mt kriowe as ta Whether the Civii aurgeen oi'the hospitat treated the appeliant. 0n what basis, such a certificate was issued twa yeare after the accident teak piece ie net tmewn. The authot at the sate; eestii‘icate had net been examined. Uniese the author 0f the ner‘ttfinate eyamtned htmaaif it was: mot admiggihie in evidence. Whether the dieabiiity at 6D% was caieutatee‘ 0n the basis at the previeione of the Werkmen’e Compeneation Act or atherwise is net known. It is atso net known ae te whether he was campetent te issue such a certificate. tt even deee net apeeat that tt‘ie eeetentter‘te raieee hetere Lie hee‘ either been raieect before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunat as also the High Court, theretere, proceeded er) the materiais breught en record by the parties. in abeenee 0f any eanterttion having been raised in regard to the appiicebiiity st the Workmen’s Compeneatien Act which, in our opthieh, ex taste has he apptteatteh, the same, ih Ger opinioh. cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” ?. in View of the above quoted dicta oi’ the Apex Court in the oases 0t AP. $R‘m vs. P. 'i'hirupai Raddy (Supra) and Rajesh Ktrmar atiae Raju ire. Yudhvir $§hgh and another (Supra), the medieai certiticate produced by the appeiiant/ ciaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certit'icate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore. do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat. @ 9 The apgeaf med by ihe appeHanU‘ ciaima‘nt for Gf the compensatian, theremre? is (gable to be di'smissed hersby dismfssed . di'smissed and 1Q. No oraer as to costs. Xxx . V” Sd/‘ ‘ Sd/— Chief Jusu‘ce L2, f 2‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha WW [ Subbu K< ‘ ‘ JUdge;_g I ‘{‘ ’.