:© l-TOHCQURTOF^UHA'l"I'IS<3ftRHiM'Bll.ASPUR .^"D!W!S!<3NS^BEN'CW. —".'::-"'; •'. ':;:;: CORAM: Abpeliant CtaimaFit HON'Bl.^SMRIRAJEEV^ypTA,C.J. HON'BLESHRlRANSNAtHGHARlDRAKAR,J MiscADDea^No.8850fr200e Narayan l.alSallu, agectaboutSSyears, S/o Buaiiuratti Sahu, R/o Village&^Post ^l-lascla&No.l.yR.S.&^T'astiil^ Respondents Disti'ict Dhsmtari (CG^at Presel'it Bus- stand^Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur, Dlstt. Raipur(0G). Versys : / '• ' . .. : ,, ::' . ..• 1 Ramlal Sahy, ^/o Keshay Sahu, through: Suq^ Sjng^ ©hawala,^ Station Roact, MaKasamund,Tahsiland DistrictMahasarRUnd<CG) 2 fShn Siurj^etJ^Sing^ ehawala,^ag6cl and ^on ^ not^known; RAi Station Road; ^Mahasgmund, T^ &-0is^ 3. BranchManager, ftie N®wln|EtifflhSiUFanceGo.Ltd.,R;D Bullcling^Bajrang Market, Raipur, Tat'1 :::.'::-,:DisA.yRatpur<SG):.^'^<:1:';^,^ MisGeliaheousaDDealumdeB"Section1^36ftheMol6itVehicle Present : Shri R RFadhan.eottRSieltetheaDDellaht. V/,-^^DER.;^i-':,':,'••'.;..''• ^,.,^9thApril,i20^::.:, ,,;•.: :;,:.--..,;,,^ '. ; The fbllowing order W^^^ l^ :Rajeev®upt&C.J.',;^:',a:.'?-''.:!":;^ .'':;;:. •l''l'.::'::;'. & by '1. ]i:y :!:: 1 i^. ^ •:(uap!OOB j|D}oi.U s^tljis8.]n)o^ 4pBmje|o^B|jaddB stfl yBnoy^i^Oi-yo^ ^o) BuiRjBAffi^y! p3jjas8et|^ieunc^^94t w^ |lue||9dd& ey^ jo^ lesunpo ^UJESI ^eyi^a^&^^ •^Buuieio^oyuoiiesusclm ^ uns;|e%} B ^pjEMB ^Eunqu^gyfc^ j@^m8i uj^i^Aq psyiei^Sssunlui^;]!^^ |W^l'uoi^S!^unulB!^ciw!BPfr^ Aq psUlj^o >-^ooi^C©!1?^^^Lyo<lBS^ ?S003^''ONJ3iB£)^U!e|;)U!p3ssed90oz-Oi,'8Z ^^p pje^sp (,|!Bunquj;9t<^?joiqstJo^,>jrTCliByltB^^^ papioo^ W N lB^ !W^^ SM^qaRS(3^ l&yt|b^uj33ueyua?6u!)|8a&s!;nt(BSte^ueABJBN;^p •uoissiLUpe utfRJe8i(S!^yB||3dde3t)po^|3sur»o3psujesi'yei|pKjdy!JySi^^^^^^^^ !'p3UopuooAq3j8ys!|esddest|»Buj|^uj;sABp|<2; % Ae|Sp9i<}pUBp3moi|BS!'3jqi •iesiclcieaii|^6y!|ity!Ae|3R,9t|}jo^ssnBft W9!3!yns6ujAW4SUipsp9a3onsseM^B||adde34y^ 9JB 3/w 'uoj^jjdde 8t|( ui us>|eispuno^BistftpUB }UE|)3dde issynpa paujBs|josMo!^!^Rs^i|»^ijO!pjsp!suoo^^s^ •IBgddesyi Buiiy ui^iapstft^o uoi^uopugOJqj uoiiipd e 'goo^tZ^ON^^^^^ uopjea4si^B||9dde3i^jo^|9synoQp9tye3|'yBVpejcl^!^ 9 Ihiil 1::1 iis'E :ii -~?- ^^...s^^ 3 8) For the reasonis best knbwn to the appellarit /claimaht, no doctor wras examlnecl to establish the nature of the injurles said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accidentanclthe faetthatthQse injuries resultect in anypermanent disability. 9) The qyestion whether the medical certifieate produced by the ctaimant befbre the Tribunal wjthout eiaimining the Doctor who issued the certiflcate can be reljed upon as substanitiye evidence fC)rth&assessmentoNhecompensationcar^e|upf6rconsideration befor& the Apex Gourt in the ease of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddyreported|n(2005)^2SCG189,whereinitwas6bservedin :para6.as'urider:'\,;;:'',:'.••'''.•-'-..^ , . "6. Afl^ heanng learned counsel^ f^^^^ respohclent - ctaimant whp made an attempt to support the order of^heHigh Court, we fihd that therewasno.justifieatio^fortheHighCourttorely onthedisabilitycertjfltiat^issLffidbyDrSudhiakar Reddyandehhance1:hecompensationbytreating the injury as perrnarient disability tp be 45 percent. TheHighGourtcommittedarosserrorin overiookino Ihe fa&t tKat Dr Sucthakar Reddv's medleal Gertiflcate:was reieGted bv theTFibunal for nOn-examination ofthat doetor. TheTribllnal i has determined^he tehvsical dlsabllitv at 15 Der eentonthebasisoftlietleDOsitibndfDrKMMitrai and awarded a iust arid fair compensation. The Hiah Ciburt erred ih ellsturtilnd itBe same and enhancina tM&GOmpen^ation. CSon^quentiy, we allow this a^|3eatti^|t]|a|ide?itl'ig impiHgned order and restoi^ae^Saiwai^®o^ttnie© ^Si •ilt.; ^ The respondent-claimant 1s allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribynal, if it has nof already been withdrawn." 10) The Apex Court in a reeent dictum in Ihe case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and ariother, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 30S, reiterated the same view wjth the following observations In para 11 : "11. The certificate in qyestion in this case was obtained after two years. It is not;;ki?own as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hosriital treated the appetlant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the aceident took place is' not Known. The autHor of the said certificate haci-not been examined. Untess Ihe author ofthe certifiGate examined himself. it was notadmissibtelnevideHGe.Wtietherthedisability at 60% was calculated on the baSis of the provisions of the WQrknien's Compensation Act orotherwjseisnotknown.ltisalsonotknownas to whether he was eompetent to issue such a certifiGate. It everi does not appear that the contentions raised before us had ejther b6en raised befftre^he Tribunal orthe High Gourt. The Tribunal as ^also tKe High Court, P therefore, proceeded on the matenalsbroyghtonrecqrdby the partjes. In absence pf any contentlon having ''- ., been raised in regard to the applicabHity of tne Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion,ey^ac®hasn0applicat|on,thesame,in our ppinion, canriot be permittect to be raiseci for the firsttime."l F'lilli( 5 padma 11) In view of the above quotect drcte of'the Apex Gourt In the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy '(supra) Rajesh Kumar atias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra),the medical certificates produced by the appeliant/claimant before the Tribunal without examlnlng the Doctors who had issued the those certificates, cannot be taken into consideratlon for enhancement of the eompensatlon In the case. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhaneement of the\ . compensation awardedbytheTribunal. [ j i: \ • . ' ' . 1. .! 13) The appeal, filed by the appellanVclajmant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby djsmlssedsummarily. __——. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Raagnath Cnandrakarj,; ^..