W Appellant — Laxmi Sharma is seeking enhancemeni of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, $astar at Jagdaipui (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 16-02—2004, passed in Ctaim Case No.452/2002‘ 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,48,000/— claimed by the appeilantlclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 o1” the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 05-08-2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rsi8,6661’— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas KShrivastava, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,666ie only, though the appellant/ claimant Sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 4) Shri GS. Patel, iearned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the ciaimant could not establish that she sustained any permanent disabiiity on account of the injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. t 5) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for respondents G \ ;No.1 & 2 aiso supported the award. ‘6) Before the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses including herseif (AW1 Laxmi Sharma and AWIZ Uttam Sharma) iin support of her claim, For the reasons best known to the lappeltant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal tq establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor aocident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabitity, 7‘) The question whether the medical certifioate produced by the ctaimant before the Trtbunal 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 tn the case of AP. SRTC v. Pt Thirupai Raddy, reported in (2M5) 12 SCC 1%9, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: “d. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ctaimant 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 per cent. The Hiqh Court committed dross error in overlookino the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv’s medical certificate was retected bv the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disabiiitv at 15 ber cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. KM. Mitre and awarded a iust and fair 1% com e $ation. he Hi h Coutt erred i isturbin the same and enhancing the comoensation. Consequentiy, we ai§ow this appeaL set aside the impugned order and {eetere ihe award of the Ciaims TribuneL The respondent-claimant is auewed t0 withdraw the amount of campensatmn awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been Withdrawn.” 8) The Apex Court in, a recent dictum in the case of Ratesh w» Kismet alias Ragu v. Yudhvir $ingh and another, reported in {Emmi ? $CC 305, reiterated the same View with the fotlowing ebservations in para ‘11 : “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years it is nOt knqwn as to whether the Civii $urgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. 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 been examined. Unless the author cf the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calcuiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is‘ not known. it is aiso 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 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 appiicabiiity 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.” ti ‘9) in View of the above quoted dicta 9f the Apex Coun in the 6 cases of ANP. SR‘EC v: P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appeilantlciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the ‘Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into t obnsideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 10) We, therefore; do not find any scope for enhancement of the compeneation awarded by the Tribunal, 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and ie hereby dismieeed. 12) No order as to costs. ‘ .l l l i Sdl- Wi l Chief Justice I l subbu