Ci M: I'BLi CHA! Chandra Bhaan Sahu, S/o Mohit Ram, aged about 48 years, Occupation - Servlce, Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Pampapur, Police Station & Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Sarguja (C-G) Sachin Dev Vishwakarma, S/o Surendra Vishwakarma, aged about 20 years, Occupation ~ Driver of the offending vehicie, Caste - Vishvv'akarma, R/o Village - Telimuda, PQiice Station Sonhat, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) Present Address : Minus Coi Quarter No. 417, Near Pani Tanki, Bishrampur, Tahsil - Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG) Manoj Kumar, S./o Anjoran Lohar, Occupation - Owner of the offendin< vehicle Bearing r^r^ .0'J 15 B/2498, Aged about 34 years, R/o Quarter No.417, Near Pani Tanki, Bishrampur, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Sarguja Branch Manaaer, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) MDi Present: Shri Sarfaraj. Khan, learned counse! for the apDellant. + 1 ORDER ;tTT The followina order of the Court was passed bv Appellant -.Chandra Bhaan Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja, (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 10.03.2010, passed in Claim CaseNo. 187/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,11,500/- ciaimed 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 05.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation alpng with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the c!aim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri Sarfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.80,000/- only though the appeliant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of20%. 4) For the reasons best known to the appeilant / claimant, no doctor was sxamined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustajned by the appeilant/ daimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in anv permanent dlsabilitv. ' +• 1 BB WSWWS9isiSWSS!' 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. '. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, whereln it was obsen/ed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 certificats issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. T'ne_High Cburt committed_aross error in overlookinfl the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certincate was__rejected_ bv_the Tri for non- ixammation of ihat doctor. The TribuDal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the depQsition of Dr. K.M. h4itra and awarded a iust and fair compensation._Tne Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aiiow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw 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 Rajesh , re? 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appetlant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed'summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge f +