’@ m Muwm r” v ’SQQR? @F SH§§§§ATT§S$1§R§€ Kr B§L£SPL§R EEW$§€3N 3ENCH QQER‘Q‘M : Aggamm Céaimant %®.§ELE SHW mJEEV @LEW‘k C.é. 8: FéGN’BLE SHPJ RNVKRNATH CHkNBRAKAR, ‘3‘ MEsc. Mapwi Na.'§a‘é‘r§“§ m? 25% MD Ema? @ Eewu aged abeui; 3G yeaa S40 Nipaz Ahmad‘ Ric Ta; Naggar, Pandri, Po§ice Stat§on -— Civii Léne‘s, ";'ah$'ii & Disiric‘i — Raipur (CG) VEESUS * Shamghan ¥ac§av, agad abcut 33 yeam, S/e Bisahu Yadav, (Tactor Griver), Rio Mhaveer Gausha!a, KK Road, Medahapara, Raipur‘ District — Raipur (CG} Mahaveer Gawhala, Thmugh the president Ramji Agrawak, R/Q Mahaveer Gaughala, KK Road Modahapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) The New India insurance Company Ltd, Through the Bfanch Mnager‘ Divisiona§ Office. Kachahar'i Chawk, Jaé! Road‘ Raipur, {CG} Rxsagpgmieam ()x. wswéianeaus awmE U19 ’W?» 0f that: Mam? Vahicies Act 1988 Present : 3m€ Somshukéa Sarkar. counsel f0? the appeilam. GRmER {12m January, 20W; The feléewing Order cf the Ceun was pa$3ed by a: Rcagaw Ggmw, CJ. $mi Semshukia Sarkar, iearned counsel for the agpeimnt is heard 0n adméssian. \ h) 2. Appeiiant m MD {Jmar @ Babéu is seeking enhancement of iha campenSaiion awavded by the Tenth Additianak Mater Acckéent Ciaimg Tribunai, Raipw (for shart ‘the Tribuna!’} vMe awmd dated 23.08.2005, passed in claim Case Nam/20%. 3 . As against the campensaiion of Rs.6,20,0GG/- siaimed by me amoanant‘lcmiman by rfiiing ciaim petition under Seciion t a i86 ef the. Mctor Vehicies Act far ihe injuries sustaineci by him in i‘ha moior accidani 6n 0934,603, the Tfibunai awarded a toéai 2 mm 0i R8UOGI— as compensaiian ieng with interest @ 9% .5. a per-annum from the daie of fiiing m” the daim petition tiii the date Of §ciuai payment. 4. Smt Somshuie Sarkar, ieamed counsl for the appeiiant k e ‘Jeheentiy ued ihai: the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow m arg compesation of Rs.5,000/- oniy though the appellantiaiant n /cm susi‘ainad muiie serious injuies inciuding fractures in the mter iip r e accident resulting in permaneni ciisabiiity. 5 . Fer the reasone best known to the appellant/ claimant, no nectar wee examined before the Tribunal to estabiieh .the nature of ihe injuriee said to have been euetained by the aepeliani! eiaimani in the motor aooident and‘the fact that those injuries ~reeulted in any permanent disability r3. The questi n whether the medioai certificate produced by the claimant hetore the Tribunai Without examining the Doctor a: who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment ot the compensation came up tor : v /‘// " y/V/ @ sensideraticn before the Apex Couri in the case of AP. :EERTC v. n Thimpai Reddy, reported in (20%) 12 SCC $9, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under : nee e. After hearing reamed caunseé fer the respondeni~ craimant whe made an attempt to support the order o? the High Court. we find that there wee no guettftsation for the High Court to rety on the dieabitity certificate issued by Dr. $udhai<ar Reddy and enhance the oompensatien by rearing the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hicrh Ceurt committed gross error in overioeking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai eertificete wee reiected by the Tribunai for non- exemination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined t‘ne ohystcai dieabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis or" the cieooeition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow this appeai. set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The reseondent—claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the'Tribunal, if it has not aireadv been withdrawn.” 7. The Apex Court in a {scent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kamar atiae Rage v. Yudhvir $tngh and another, reported in tame; T SEC 3%, reiterated the same View with the foliowlng observations in para 11 ,: “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon or' 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 oi i im gaixj cemfioate haeE not been examined. Unless the auihor of the cemiégate examined himsie¥f. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity a€ 60% wee calcuteted en the basis of the previsiene cf the Workmen’s Cempensation Act or otherwise is net knewn. tt ie also not known as to whethet he was comeetent to ieeue such a certificate. it: even does not appear that the cententicne reised befefe us had either been raised befere the Tribunal er the High Court. The Tribune! as atee the High Court, therefore, ‘proceedect en the '.‘aa‘teriaie brought on record by the parties. tn absence 0f any centention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen’e Compensation Act whioh. in our opinion, ex facie has no appiioation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raieed for the first time.” 8. i. vtew of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the oaoee of i3? $Ri‘a v. P. Thirupai Roddy (Supra) and Rajesh homer aiias Rain \r. Yutthvir Singh and another (Supra), the rnedioai Certificates produced by the appeiiantlciaimant before the Tribune! without examining the Doctore who hao issued the eaid oertifioate's, cannot be taken into consideration tor enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9. We, theretore, do not tine any scope forenhancennent of 1 the oomoensation awarded hy the Tribunai. it}. The appeal fiied by the appellantlolaimant for enhancement ot the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariig. \ 'C 7sw~.:~' . l ' '.R.N.Chandrakar . Iudge‘ ‘ i Sd/— CHIEF JUSTICE a ‘