^lfrC QiiiffjG . CJ. _Naj621M2010 Ratlram Sahu, S/o Shri Sahu, Clalmant about 40 years, R/o Povver House & Distt (CG) 1 Singh Sandhu, S/o Guruwachan S'ingh Sandhu, R/o Viiiage Ratanpur, Distt BIJaspur 2 Singh Hora, S/o Late Shri Guruvy'achan Singh Hora, R/o C/o JP Vihar Road, (CG) 3. Divlsionai Manager, The orientai insurance Company LimEted, 1 Fioor, Trade Centre, Opposite Rajiv Bus Stand, Biiaspur, (CG) Through - Dlvlsiona! Manager The OrientsJ insurance Company Umited, Purana Bus Tahsil & Distt Korba, (C.G) 173 of : Shri SK Guha, for the |th The foiiowlng order of the Court by C.J. Shri SK Guha, iearned counsel tor the appeilant Js heard on admission. 2) Appeiiant Ratiram Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compep.satlon awarded by the 2" Additional Motor Accident C!aims Tribunai, Korba (TQr short 'the Tribuna!') vlde award 25.11.2009, in Ciaim No. 104/2008. 3) As the compensatlon of Rs.8,50,000/-, by the appeliant/claimant by filing a claim under Ssction 166 of the Act for the Injuries by him in the motor on 28.03.2008, the Tribunal a total sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensatjon wlth jnterest @ 9% per annum from the of fiiina of the claim petition till the of payment. 4) Shri SK Guha; iearned counsel for the vehemently that the Tribunai has in awardlng low compensation of Rs.20,000/- only, though the appellant/ciaimant sustalned muitipie injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resultlng in permanent disabiiity. 5) For the reasons known to the appellant / claimant, no doctor befbre the Tribunai to the nature of the injuries to by the cEaimant In the motor and the fact that Injuries in any permanent dlsabiJity. 3 6) The question v^hether the medlcal certiflcate produced by the ciaimant the Tribunal without examinlng the Doctor who the can be upon ss evidence for the of the compensation came up for conslderation befbre the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. in 12 189, wherein it was observed in 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counse! for the respondent - ciaimant who made an to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the Hlgh Coyrt to rely on the dlsabliity certificate Issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by tres.tlng the Injury as permanent dlsability to be 45 percent. The High Court commjtted gross error in oyeriookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examlnatlon of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the Dhvsical disabiiitv at 15 per cent on the of the depositiQn of Dr KfV! Mitra and a iust and fair compensation. The Hlah Court erred in disturbina the and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aljow this appeai, set the Impugned order and the of the CIaims Tribunal. The respondent-cialmant is aElowed to withdraw the amount of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been wlthdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the of Vs Yud.hvlr reported In 4 7 th.e viev',/ with 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 w'nether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was two years after the accident took Is not known. The author of the certiflcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate himsejf. it was not in evldence. Whether the dlsabiijty at 60% was on the of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or Is not Known. it is not known as to whether he competent to such a certlficate. !t even not that the contentions us E^ad before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as the High Court, therefore, on the brought on record by the in of any contention havlng in to the appiicabjlity of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act which, jn our opinion, ex has no appJication, the irs our opinion, be permitted to be for the first time." 8) !n view of the above quoted of the Apex Court in the of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Kumar Vs Yydhvlr (supra), the certificate produced by the appeilant/cialmant before the Tribunai wlthout examlnlng the Doctor who had ths certificate, 5 (^ cannot be Into consideration Tor enhancement of the compensatson In the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeai, filed by the appeiiant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, and is hereby dlsmissed on merits summariiy notwithstanding that it is barred by tlme by one day. — Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu