y ^H FtHI I^T n^ F!i B'ils^Q ^toii'^aS?^r<L 1 i^t?F~ W 'iOiur'. >rui CORAR,'!: RAJi ^3 U-t^, HON'! SI'Mfl .1 ^ta^i'Bie—r^.i !A, f^,!r1-: ^Mj rtE">."n-i."!,^ ^iSii i tSii t' MSC^A&BI ^; a^i 200^ Manohar S/o Jhumuk Caste - Gadariy; aged about 40 years Occupation A.qriculturist & Lc Lochan, PO Marka Tah. Kawardha, Distt. b Vill; Thana Pipariya, Kabirdham (CG) ResFi nriian^ ^ t'^?~^'S(l/' C^-^pv^ ^•^l^? r O/-^ dch n^,*'''*'^^^^ F^^ O^si^^ 1 jSLHSK KSFH sssnu s/s KED8If8H1 ^3ni Occupation - Transporting R/o TiRarapara, Raipur! at present Address ^f^l^y^ F3r~\ R.4-.«-i/^. T'l-,.^^^ 0;»,.^».E^^ ?\ot!an, i*ij iviarKa i nans i-'ipanya, Tah . Kawardha, Distt KabErdham (CG) Nationai' . insurance Company Ltd Through - Board Manaaer, Board Office Akashgs.nfla Comptex, Supela, Bhitai Distl (^ '/^*<^\ 3 r'^< F.4emorandum of nRDeai under Section 173 of ,^'rfci U,:t, Present: Shri Ramnivas Pandev, counsel for t.he appeilant. Shri Ansnd Gupta, iearned counsei on behalf of Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsei for respondent No.2. S'" Ai 'he follov.'ing order of the Court was passed by Kajeev Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Manohar is seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, Kav.'ardha (for short 'the Tribunai') vide avv'ard datec 29.03.2006, passed in C-laim Case No.22/'2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.16,73,800/- cialmed by the appeilanV claimant by fiiing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.04.2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.76;845/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum. 4) Shri Ramnivas Psndey, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compsnsation of Rs.76,845,/- only though the appeilant/ claimant sustained multipie serious injuries Including fractures in the motor accident, resultina. In Dermanent disabilitv. 5) The claimant, before the Tribunal, examined hirnself only as .WV-1. For the reasons best known to the appelianV claimant, no doctor 'A'as examined before the Trlbunal to establlsh the nature of She Injuries sald to hs.ve been sustained by the appeliant' ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiiity. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before th.e Tribunal without examinlna the Doc-tor who Issued the certificate can be reHed upon as substantive evidence •forthe assessment ofthe comDensation.came up for consideration tOtfnrpi fhsB AnffiY F^nEiF'f' Ir •^-LV^-i lu; ti l\-. nj.^^.-.ft. 1trf'L^iuSi • Ei <eaay,reported in (200S) 12 SCC 189, vrfherein it was observed in ?^i2i~''3 ^s •s<2 ! srtdar • p-Cti CS U <SS U! iuisi . f-2-i "6. After hearing learned counse! for the respondent- claimant who ma.de an attempt to support the order of the High Court, v/e find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabiSity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating th.e injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed aross error in o'/eriookin.q the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor The Tribunai has determined the "physical disabi!ity at 1 per cent on the basis of th.e deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. - The High Court erred In disturbing the same and enhancina the compensation. ConseQuentiy, vv'e allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Clalms Tribunal. The respondent-claimant Is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribuna!, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7) Tha Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raje .umar Kaju 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following 'vations In para 11 : "11. The certlficate in question in this case was obtained after.tv/o years. It is not knov/n as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two vears after t.he accident took place is not known. The author of the said irtlficate had not been examined. Uniess tne, author of the certifjcate examined hlmseif, it was not admissible in evidence. VVhether the disability at 60% was calculated on ihe basis of the provisions of ths Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear tha had either been raised Court. The Tribunal as the contentions raised before us before the Tribunai or the Hiflh also the High Court, therefore, sroceeded on the materials brou.qhf on record by the parEies. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act whlch, in our opinion, ex facie has no app!ication, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for thp firsf tinip S-si^ iEii3i. i.HU^. in view of the above quoted d'cta of the Apex Court in the rk^<%?!i« •.u'lwl'luSlur' i) ar iu v. vuanv iingh another (Supra), the medical certif'cates produced by the appeltant/claimant before the Tribunal v-'ithout examininQ the Doctors v/ho had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of CQmni:Ens;?3T!on in tr ^w^! i i^'e?i a-h?cti.;iu/i l ii 3 l.j i1S ^Oi.31C?. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the appeilani/ claimant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summari'y. subbt Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge