'v /' •'.-•^ iVl.A.^io,7lB3/20G6 Prakash S/o Jhaduram Cast — Kewat, aged about 30 years, Occupation Agriculturist & Labour R/o Village Lochan P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah tewardha, District Kabirdharn (C.G,.) Versus. 2 janak Ram Sahu, !S/o BiDatram sahu, Occupation Transporting.R/o Tikarapara Raipur at present Address Koiiari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah.Kawardha, District Kabirdliam (C.G.) Jslational.iRsi.irance.CompanyLtd. 'FhroygbBbardManagerBDarej Office Akashganga Compiex Supela Bhiiai District Durg (C.G.) ISGELLANEQUS APPEAL UNDER_SEGTIQN1730EJiiE i»'i1iBff s .iiw?.r'<fc ^; Smt. Renu Kochar, Counsel fortheappellant. Shri Anand Gupta, Counse! for respondent No.2. The foilowing order of the Court . was passed Heard on admission. . ,, „ (2) The appellanS/ctaimant Bagfiled this appeal for^nhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in Giaim Case No.24/2QQ5' .^.r !^ ^. M.A.N0.763/200Q by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), ^birdham District Kawardha on 29.03.2006. (3) The appellant/ciaimantfiled aclaim petition under Section 166 of the IVlotor Vehicles Act, ctaiming compensatJon of Rs.8,40,950/- for the personai injuries systained by him .in the motor accident, which took piace on 26.04.20Q5. (4) Though the appellant/claimant contended that he sustained many injuries including fractures in the motpr accident and he filed various documents (certificates relating to his .treatment), but no •Doctor was examined by the appellant to prove t'nose documents/certificates issued in his favour,Therefore,'ttie learned Claims Tribynal looking.to the over all evidence on rec6rd, awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.1007/- towards medica];expehses(onthe basis of receipts produced), Rs.2000/- towards conveyance'and'!Rs.28PP/-. towards ioss of twp bags of grams, Rs.3150/- towards I'oss'o^eaFntng^aFid Rs.5QO/- towards the expenses for filing the application; in this manner, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum ofRs.1,4,457/-totheappellanVclaimantasthe amount of compensation on aceount of personal injuries sustained by him inthe motor accident. The questiQn whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant 'oefore the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substanfive evidence for the assessment of th& compensation came up for consideration before the Apex CQurt in'the^case'df aff.P.' SR7C v.'-'P. Thimpal Reddy. reported in (2005} 12 SCC fSS. wherein it was pBserved-in para,6asunder:' ', • ' •' '."'•-- *^.^ . .- •" • '.' ':".. • •• . .' '•.'-.••• ':'•''' ' ... "' ' -n; "6. After hearing ieamed' counsel for the respoRdent-claimantwho fflade.an· attempt.to syppQrt, ' the order ofthe High Court,.we Ttnd.thatthere was no jusfification for thei.High eour('to;i-ely-6n the|djsability certificate issuetf b^ Dr. ;Sydhakar^Redd^:lanA etghance ^ the compensation by treating Ihe .tnjury as permanent -^ Irg E m :^"^ K r^ M.A.No.763/2006 disability to be 45 per cent. The High Courteommitted aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bvthe Tribunal fpr non-examination of that?d6etor. Th'e Tribunal has determined the Dhvsicaldisabiiitvat 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition 6f Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and feir compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the comDensation. Conseqyently, we allow this appeal, set aside the jmpggned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribuna!. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrav/n." (6) The Apex Court in a recent.djctum in the case oi Raiesh Kusnar aSias.Raiu v. Yudhvir Sinah and another. reported in 7 SCC 305. reiterated the same view .w |the following observationsinparaTI: . ; "11. The eertificate in question in this case was obtained after fwo years. !t 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 after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not beenexamined. Uniess the author of the Gertificate examihed himself. it was_not admissihje in evidence. Whether 'the disabiiity at 60% was eaiculated on the basis of the provioions of the fl.In'rkmen's Compensation Act-or otherwise is not It is also not ftnown as to whether he was compe'tent to Issue such a certifiGate. Iteven does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal asalso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on , - the materials brought on- record by the parties. In absence Qf aoy cOntention having been raisea. jn regard to the applicability ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act which,in our opinion, exfacie has no application, the 3ame,;in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised -„,. forthe'firsttime." , ^" ^. . . . " • . •• ' ' • ....'• "''•.'. (7) As we have already mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the apRellant/claimant either sustained fracture orhesuffered any permanent disability on accountofthe injyries sustained by him. ;l.il 'Si- S(Si •I/ M.A. No.763/2006 (8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC y. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and_g^s& Kumar a!ias Rajii v. Yudhvir Singh and anotfaer (Supra), the certificates produced before the Tribynal in absence of examination of the~ Doctor issuing the certificate were neither admissible in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in thecase. (9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribuna!. , (10) The appeal filed bythe appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismiss^d and is hereby ciismissed. . (11) No order as to costs. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge N