OF AT CJ, Cialmant No.787 Jagat Ram son of Sampat Ram, aged about 28 years, Caste Harijan occupation ~ Agriculture and Business, r/'o. viiSags Kusmushi, Chowkl Basdej, P.S. and Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Punamchandra @ Mannu, Son of Mahabir Prasad Goyai, aged 27 years, R/o Village Bhaiyathan @ Jhilmili, Tahsil Surajpur, Dlstrict Surguja (CG) (Driver& Owner) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office, Satimudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) (Insurer) Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Non-appiicants Mi Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, iearned counsel for the appeiiant. ORDER ith The foiiovdng order of the Court was passed by CJ. Learned counsei for the appeliant are heard on i.A. No.01/2010, an app!icatlon for condonation of the deiay in fiiing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counse! for the appeilant and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appea!. 3) i.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, Is aiiowed and the delay in fjling theappeai is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appeliant are heard on admission. 5) Appeilant - Jagat Ram Is seeklng enhancement of the compensatson awarded by the Flrst Additiona! Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 06-02-2010, passed in Claim Case No.02/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- ciaimed by the appeliant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10-02-2005, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with lump-sum amount of interest of Rs.3,000/-. 7) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia and Shri Atanu Ghosh, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred In awarding iow compensation of Rs.20,000/- oniy. ,/ 8) Before t'ne Tribunai the ciaimant examined himseif alone as AVV/1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to the appeliant/ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to estabiish the nature ofthe injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident and the fact that those Injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued 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 v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in 12 189,wherein .it was observed in para 6 as under: "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 Hlgh Couit: to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent dlsability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court commstted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for norh examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsicai disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, ^PjiiIiKf^^^Ii Ijigggggiljlljjll^^jljtllj^ we ailow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the CIaims Tribuna!. The respondent-ciaimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensatsori awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar Raju v. Yudhvir Singh aod another, reported In 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view wlth the foilowing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Suraeon of the hospitaj treated the appeilant. On what basis; such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of t'ne said certificate had not been examined. Untess the author of the certjficate examined himseif. it was not admissibie in evidence. 'Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certlficate. !t even does not appear that the contentlons ralsed before us 'nad either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the Hlgh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." B- "•T"-". , / ^""^ ^ 11) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Kumar v. Yudhvlr another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appeJlant/ciaimant before the Tribuna! without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 12) We, tiierefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appeliant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. ; ^subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge