Ci i^^l5' IWI^I il- •a^EE-IK IS'MnA, CLAI Mant Ram Nishad S/o Sri Mehattar Ram Nishad aged about 33 years, R/'o Viilage & P.0. E318PSF3, Mohabhatt, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Kutubuddin S/o Sri Rahimuddin Musaiman, Occupction Driver, R/o Village Mowa, Nearest Maszid, Thsna — IVIows, Ralour, Tshsil SE Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Shagir Ahemad @ Rafik Ahemad S/o Sri Nasir Ahemad R/o Viliage ivloudhapara, Thana Moudhapara, Tahsi! & Distt. Rsipur (C.G.) United India Insurance Company Limited, through : Divisionai Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur, Tahsl! & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) MOTORVEHSCLESACT, 1888 Present Shri S.C.-Verma, learned counsel for-the appeilant. Shrl'Dashrath Gupta, iearned counse! for respondenl atn The foiiowina order of the Court was passed bv Gupta, CJ.: 'tl i<B;^•SSSS-f' Appellant Mant Ram Nishad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.12.2003, passed in Claim Case No.59/2002. 2. As against the compensationof Rs.10,55,000/-claimed by the appellant/ 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 25.08.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiontill the date of actual 3. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.45,000/- oniy though the appellant/ claimant suffersd multipleserious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident. 4. The claimant though examined two witnesses before the Tribunal ih support of his claim inciuding himself, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to-establish the nature of the injuries said to N / ha'/e been susfajned by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. ,. 5.. .The question whether the medical certifteate produced by '."the clairaant.b'efore the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who .^. '•s ' • . ' : • .^ssued the certifjcatfe_c^n b&relied upon as substantive evidence I 1 '•a "(Syl for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thlriipa! Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189; wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: for the attempt to "6. After hearing learned counsel respondent-claimant who made an 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 andenhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent dlsabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical.certificate was reiected bv the Tribunat for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determlned the phvsica! disabiiitv at 15 per cent on t'ne 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. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore t'ne award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent- ciaimant is aliowed to wlthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6. The Apex Court In a recent dictum in the case of Rajesl alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Sjngh and another, reported in 305, reiterated the same view with the followins 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 of 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 of the sald certificate had been examined. Un!ess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the WorKmerf^Compensation Act or otherwise Is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions ralsed before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceedecj on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised In regard to the applicabillty 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 She first time." 7. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appellanV claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the comp.ensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismlssed and is hereby dlsmissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/-? Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge •i.imrTU