GM SOUR“? OF CHWXTT $Gi¥RH A 8 LASPUR ENE$EQN BENQH , Cgi’am : §§GN ELK: SEiRi RA£EEV GLP‘H; C J & HQP"ELE 3ER¥ $UN‘L KJ‘VEAR $§NHA .§ Misc. Annem Ne.$31 af Z$§§ Jfw, AP?ELLI-‘.N‘§ Chaitanya Kumar D&n§, Age s46 w CEaimm-t years, Occupaiion S/o Late Advocate $.L. Dani, & Noiary, RIO Nemichand wait Ramsagayparax Raipur {6(3) V‘ ‘ ~ ¥Jersu§ REsPQNEEN‘ré Akhatar AH; Sic Afgai AEL Age 2‘; yeam, Rio Rajatalab, in fmnt a? Nuram Chowk. Rai'pur {C.G.). 2. Bashir Ali, Slo Néya} Aii; RIG Rajataiab, Raigaur (6.6). 3. The 0r§entai msurance CG. Ltd, Manda! ffice No2, Chawka Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, 8a; Nags: pm W w; 1/‘f\\ Miss Appeai ander Section 173 0f motor Vehicle Acm Q38. Present: w §\. Nance ieamed counse: mnhe appenam Shn Vkram DIXit iaamed course! fer respondents Noi and2 Shri Rajendra Triga‘thi, ieamed sounsel for respandent N03. GRDER @9'“ Apség, was; The foiiowingzorder of the Court was passed by 3 E:&§%V Gama, Gui: Learned courasei fm ihe parties are heard on adm§ssion 2) Appelianti’ daimant Chaitaraya Kumar Dani £3 seekimg enhancement efihe compensaeien awamed by ihe 14‘“ Additionai ? m w) Mafor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Raépur (for short ‘the Tribunaé’) vide swam dated 03.:132905, passed in Ciagm Case MAS/2004. 3} As agaénst the compensation of Rs.5;20;OGOI- ciaimea by the ggpééiani/ ctaémani by fiiing a claim petétion under Section 166 of the Meter Vehides Aci f0? the injuries sustained by him in the mo€or accident on 27.1 1 200% the Tribunal awarded a total sum of R$.3§.500/- as comperisation aiang with inieresi @ 6% per annum fiom éhe date of fiiing of ihe ciaim petiiion tili the date of actuai payment, \ . 4,) Shri JN. Nancie, learned counsel for ihe appeileni vehememiy aigueé thai the Tribunal has erred in awarding law campensaéion of Rs.35,GDQI- only, though appeiiani/ claimant Chaitanya Kemar Dani, sustained multiple serious injuries including fraciures in the meter accident. 5) l For the reasens beet knewn the appellant l claimani no deem: was examined befere the Tribunal te establish the nature ct the iniuries said te have been sustained by the appeliant/ ciaimant in the meter accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent cfisabtlity. 6) The question whether the medical cediticate produced by . the ciaimant befox'e the Tribu‘riai Without examining the Doctor who issued the ceitiftcate can he retied upon as substantive evidence i'cr the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before iris Apex Court in the case of AF. 3Rt‘a v. Pi Thiropat @ R§dd§h reperted in (2W5) 12 SCC 1%9, wherein it was observed in para. 6 as under : “6. After heafing ieamed caunse? foa’ the re$§0racian€-c%aimant wha mafia ai‘; a?’iam§i m Suppm {he mder of the High Court, we find ma? é'nere was n3 justif§cat§an far the H§gh Court ts reiy an the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Raddy and enhance the cempensatiori by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High Ceurt committed gross error in overiooking the faci that Dr. $udhakar Reddy’e m b €0r € ee‘icai ceriificate was re'ectea' me Tribur‘iai non—examinatien o§ that docter. The Tribunal has determined ihe Qhysicai disabiiity at 15 per cent on the ‘basis ei i’ne degoeiiion of Dr. KM, Miira and awarded a 'uei and fair comgensaiion. The High Court erred in disturbing ihe same and enhancing the comgensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award ef the Ciaims Tribunai. The respendent- ciaimeni is aiiowed to Withdraw the amount oi compensation awarded by the Tribunal, ii it has not aiready been Wiihdrawn.” T} The Apex Court in a reeen‘t dictum in the case (if Raiesh Kumar aiias Raiu v. ‘i’udhvir Singh and anothere reported in wing) T SCC $Q5, r iterated the same View with the following observations in para t‘i : t‘i. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after twe years. it is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years atter the accident took piece is not known The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himseif, it was not admissibie in evidengxWhether the disabiiity at 60% was oaiculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s 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 raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention a 1 having been raised in regard to the applicabiiity of the Workmen’s Compeasaiion Act which, in eur opinion, ex facie has no application, the same.‘in our epinion, camot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 8) Now reverting to the present case, though the medicai certificates and C.T. Scan report were produced before the Tribunal about the injuries said to have been sustained by the u . appeiiant / ctaimant in the motor accident, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunat to prove the contents of the medicai certificates ~ a ano‘ C.T. Scan report. 9) in View of the above quoted dicta oa‘ the Apex Court in the cases of AP. SRTC v, P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Ragesh Kumar atias Raju v. Yucthvir Singh and another (Supra), the certificates produced before the Tribunat in the absence of- exarnination of the Doctor issuing the certificates are not admissible in evidence and as such cannot be taken into considetatton as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. a .a. t0) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunat. 1’1) The appeal filed by the appetlantl ctairnant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarit. Sdl- Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha r Chief Justice " Judge r, subbu y