^^assst^ rf)"''L»&T" ,^-S!EN. ^^s 'S®Bl&., sJ 3iii2ii3i|<B!*, s •^M s^ m s •f. ^ s>s .:'.-«'<vv L-iaimani Premnath Patel, S/o Ghasiya Patel, aged about 26 years, resident of villa.qe Puralna PS Civi! Line Tahsil and Distt Raipur (CG) Non-appiicants Gurumitsingh, S/o Late S.J. Singh; aged about 33 years, resldent of Raipur Madras Road Lines, Sindhi Bazar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur.^ The Nationai Insurance Company Ltd., Through Dlvisionai Manager; !ind Ftoor Mobin Mahal G.E. Road, Raipur Tahsil and Distt Raipur (CG): Present: Shri A.L. Singraui, counsel for the appellant. Shri B.N. Nande, counse! for respondent IMU.^.. ith '"-'/ The follov/Ing order of the Court was passed^ :by lajeev Gupta, C.J. - : \ Appeliant - Premnath Patel is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.09.2001, passed inClaim CaseNo.74/1999. -:«i3i1;i^ ^y' .' *.; WT'"f/ ^rc/ 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- clajmed by the appeilant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.12.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the ciaimant aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri A.L. Singraui, !earned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.20,000/- only though the appeilant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting jn permanent disability to the extent of 50%. 4) Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Nationai insurance Company Limited, on the other hand,suppartted the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.20,QOO/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in ' the facts and circumstances of the present case. i 5) Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself alone as AW1 in support of his claim. For the reasons best known to;the appellant/ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal|to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced byithe claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who <tl!l"']Wrl«'|l A"'^ i,irriigh;if&^_';V- ,.» issued the certificate can be relied upon as substanthre^evidence for the assessment ofthe compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirup. dy, reported in 6 as under: i05) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in "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 High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injurv as permanent disabilitv to be 45 per cent. The Hiflh Court committed aross error in overlookina Ihe fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's_med[cal certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of thaLdoctor. The Tribunal has; determined the physical disabi'itv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded ^a iustand faireompensatiQn_ The_Hic!h Court erred in. disiyrb'ing the^ame and enhancing the compensation,. Consequently, we . allow this appeal, set aside the impuaned order and restore the award of the Clai.ms Tribunai. Th.e respondent-claimant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribuna!, if It has not already been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dietum in the case of Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in S008) ? SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : •.y^ ^'vsi. ..&r^ "11. The certificate in question in this c^se wa; obtained after two years. It is not known as to wh.ether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant. On wh.at basis, such a certificate was issued .two vears after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not__been,examined, Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disablHty at 50% was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. iteven does not appear that the contentions raised befor0 us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the Hiah Court. The Tribunai as a!so the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of .any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same; in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medica.i certificate and the disability certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctoFS who had issued those certifjcates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. ?) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bytheTribunai. ":'i, SU&&U 10) The appeal filed by the appeilant/ciaimant for of the compensation, therefore', is liable to be dismissed herebv a'ismissed. 11) No order as to costs. !—~- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge