Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.98/2005. 2) As against compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-, claimed by the claimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 14.05.2003, the Tribunal'awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment“ ‘ 3) Ms ‘Somshukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appetlant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/-, though the, appellant VI claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the accident including fractures. 4) Ms Purnima Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on L the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation as the appellant / claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resuited in any permanent dis-ability. 5) Shri P K Tulsyan, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 also _V supported the award. 6) 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 have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) 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 evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Raddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 139, wherein itwas observed in para 6 as under : “6. After hearing learned counsel for ‘the respondent - claimant 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 certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookinq the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certmcate was reiected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount. of compensation awarded by the. Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008),? SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following ax xobsegrvations in para 1 1 : tr, i “-357? fl l {%¥~ “1 1. The certificate in question in this case was It is not known as to whether the CiVil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appenant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not knownt The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of e ‘ Icate not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated 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. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the' High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability 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 the first time." obtained after two years. 9) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court, in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P.Thirupal Reddy (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh (supra), the certificates produced by the appellant / claimant before the Tribunal without examining the doctors, who had issued those certificates cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. eavewav a. . r 2 10) The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- ‘ Sd/- Chief . Justice . l ' x R.L. Jhanwar padma ’ W ‘Ii‘lrqigg