%^^ 'ELLj iJMANT !:il ; : :1 u'^BLigesi E- e-uQi il-C SnKi SUNIL J. Shuneshwar Verma S/o Sri Gaguvi/a Ram Verma, about 30 years, R/b Village Kusmi, Tahsii - Paiari, Thana - Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Present A^-^ftAA rtuuicos Ck;A/^.».A. niiin.;^^^. Lj n.+<~S oii<3ji^ ruiija^ nui.s;!; rabhata, Raipur, Tahsil Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1. Manjit Singh S/o Sri Gurudeva Singh R/o - Guruteg Bahadur Nagar, New Purena, Thana Teiibandha, Tahsi! & Distt. Raipur. 2. Deepak Kumar S/o Sri Budhar Das, R/o Bhoipara Ajad Chowk, Near Go'vt. Toi!ate, Raipur, Tah. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New India insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisionai Manager, The New India Snsurance Co. Ltd., Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) SCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFJHE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 19i III . Shri S.C. Verma, iearned counsel for the appellant. None for respondents NG, 1 & 2. Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ;ii_^l.:-l:'-.il.t-i. 's? .Uiii.Jj-...Jiii.^L.. The foliowing order of the Court v/as passed by Appellant Bhuneshwar Verma is seeking the compensation awarded by the Third Additionai M Claims Tribunat, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vid! 07.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.73/2002. incement of tor Accidents e award dated 2. As against the compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- ciaimed by th< appeUant/ ciaimant bv fiiina a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 16.10.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the dats of actual payment. 3. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awardec by the Tribunai is too iow in comparison to the serious injuries of the injuries and the fractures SListalned by the appeiiant/ claimant in the motor accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as AW1 in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the appellanV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the iniuries said to have been sustained ihe appeilanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 5. The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who j ^.^lg^ag -!f' '^y..ycsi t? VBi^b S '^. hls-sss^' jssued 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. ThlruDal Reddy, reported in para 6 as under: 12 SCC 189, wherein ii v.'as observed in After hearina leamed counsei for the respondent-ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, \ve find that {here was no justificaSion for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar <eddy and enhance the compensation by treatiny the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court comm.jtted__grgss6rror in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certificate v/as reiected bv the Tribunai for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsicai dssabilitv at 15 E>er cent on bssis of the deDositlon of Dr. K.iV. Mitra anc awarded a just and fair compensation: The Higt Court erred in disturbina the same and en'nancing the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow this appeai, set aside the impuflned order and restore the award of the Clasms Tribunai. The respondent- claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aireadv bsen vii'ithdr; 6. The Apex Court in a recent dletum in ihe case of Rajesl smar Kaju vs. Yucinvir singn an< 7 SCC 305, reiterated the sams view with the fo in observatlons in para 11 : thi is' in "11. The certificate in question in this case was tained after tvvo years. it is not known as to ier the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated i appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was sued two years after ths accident took p!ace is known. The author of the sald certificate had t been examined. Unless the author of • the rtiflcate sxamined hlmself, it y/as not admissib!e evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was ^-»a!s-c "w"Ka&:: s ^l -'•sssu, g Bil lh E! 1 IIU-..." 1!IT!m! calculated on ihe basis of ihe provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensstion AcS or otherwise is not known. It is also 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 Tribunai as aiso the High Court, 4'l—.->_»—,C-f."—( n^.~—,<.^.^—^ —^.AE-,-^ ^—A^.u:—!~ Ltu—..—1-.A inererore, procseusa on ine maisnais urouyni on record by the partses. !n absence of any contention having been raised In regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, She same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first tlme." 7. !n vievv or the above quoted dicta of the Ap.ex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh certificati Tribunal without examinins pi £3J, bv the appellant/ claimant before the the Doctors who. had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. V\/e, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 'he a.ppeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed ana' is hereby Th( ismissed. 10. No order as to costs. sd/- Quef Justice _Sd/. suail^rSin^ 'r-Tt: (• j