^ Anup Kumar S/o Jhumuk Cast- Gond aged about 45 years, Occupation Agrieulturist & Labour R/o Village Lochan P.0. Marka,: Thana Pipariya, Tah ~ Kawardha,! District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus Janak Ram S^hu', S/o Bipatram sahu, Occupation Transporting R/o Tikarapara Raipur at preserit Address Koilari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah..Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Natidnai Insurance Cornpany Ltd. Through Board Manager Board . Office Akashganga •Supela Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) INi '•s-S^? f^s^ 5 bi&i; :s&s s.ias'Li.' Smt. Renu Kochar and Shri Ram Nivas Pandey, Counsel for theappeliant. . Shri Anand Gupta, Counsei for respondent No.2. ";'"The foilowing order of the 'Court passed by- Heard on admission. :R ./ M.A. No.764/2006 .(2) T'ne appellan't/ciaimant 'nas filed t'nis appeal for enhancement ofthe amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.18/2005 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kabirdham District Kawardha on 29.03.2006. (3) The appeiiant/ciaimant fiied a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ciaiming corhpensation of Rs.4,75,090/'- injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, ace on 26.04.2005. for the persona which took pis (4) Thoug'n the appellant/claimant contended that he sustained many injuries including fractures in the motor accident and he fiied various documents (certificates relating to his treatment), but no Doctor was examined by the appellant fo : prove those documents/certificates issued in his favour. Therefore, the iearned Claims Tribunal looking to the over all evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.92,607/-; toward? medical expenses (on the basis of receipts produced), Rs.3500/-towards conveyance and Rs.5440/- towards ioss of food- jrains, Rs.3150/- towards loss of earning and Rs.500/- towards the expenses for filing the application. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,15,197/- to the appellant/claimantas the amount of compensation on accoynt of personal injuries sustained by him inthe motor accident. _ (5) The question w/hether the medical certificate produced by the elaimanf before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the ce'rtificate can be relied upon as subsfantive evidence for the assepsment of the compensation came up for consideration „ before the Apex Court in the. case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thinipai 'ReWy_. reported in {2005} 12 SCC 189 wherein it was observed in para6 as under: After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support Court, we find that there was no ^ MA. No.764/2006 justification for the High Couri: to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. Th6 Migh Court committed aross error in Qverlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medteal certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined theDhvsical disability at 15 p6r cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair comoensation. The HJah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comRensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Cialms Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to v/ithdraw the amount of comp.ensation 'awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." (6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the oase of Rajesh Kumar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Sinah and anotiier. reported in (2G08) 7 SCC 305. reiterated the same viewwith the following observations in para 11: "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whethfer the Civil Surgeoh 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 certiflcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60%. was calculated on the basis of the-provisions.of the Workmen's Compensation Act or Qthem'ise 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 raisei^ before the Tribunal pr the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceededon the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contenfion having been raised in regard 4,,. to the applicabliity of the Workmen's Compensation Act 'Ai^ich, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised forthefirstts'me." (7) As we have already mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the faet that the appellanVclaimant ^.' HIIIBfBSi BIISBMiBB |^;l^i:l!^jE!J ^^^^|j^^g^^^€^^; i&M!^^S^^'::-:^':^^i • ^':: • m /' M.A.-N6.;'764Q»6', .^^ either sustained fracture or he suffered any permanent disability on account of the injyriessustained by him. - In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court In the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P.Thlrtfpal Recfdv fSupra) and Raiesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Sinah andanoffter (Supra), the certificates produced before the Tribynai in absence of examination of the Doctor Issuing the certificate were neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into conslderation as substantive evidenoe for assessment ofthe compensation in the ease. (9) For the foregoit enhancement ofthe (10) The the compe dismissed. reasons, we do not find.any ensation awarded by the Tiribuna fiied by theappeilant/claimantfQrenhanGement of | , therefore, Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby order as tocosts. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge shyn;