^jE.W't -'^•^^s !' ^i ;j ^slfeait' '^s^ss^ 'BLE S :^-%E^¥'tf^-t.r^t tj* ^ )/; Jai Singh, S/o. Santram Jharia, aged about 45 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o. Gram Murkuta, Thana Motinala, Distt.- IVIandla (M.P.) 2. 3. (S Harihar Prasad, S/o. Bindavan Prasad, aged about 23 years, Caste-Brahman (Dwjvedi), Occupation- Driver, R/o. Purani Basti, Shahdol, Present R/o. G.T.C.Co., Nandni Rc.ad, 5hiiai,Distt.-Durg(C.G.) Gurmukh Singh, S/o. Arjun Singh, Caste- Slkh, Occupation- Truck Owner, R/o. G.T.C. Co., Nandns Road, Bhllai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) New indla Insurance Company Limited, Through Bhilsi, Branch Manager, T'ne New India Insurance Co. Lirnited, First Floor, Thakkar Chsmbers, R/o. G.E. Road, Bhiiai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate for the appeiiant. Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocste for respondent No.3. (2. Following order of the Court was passed by The appeilant'claimant has fiied this appeal for enhancement ation awarded in Claim Case No. 42/2002 by the itional IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ka'wardha vide rddated 19.06.2003. k>/ 2 l^ 1. The appellant/claimant fiied a Ciaim petition u/s 1 66 of the Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,96,000/- injuries sustained by him in motor accident, which took pl; 30.09.1994. the on 2. The appeliant/claimant pieaded that he sustained various injuries on leg and he also suffered permanent disabiljty but no doctor was examined by him to substantlaie the above contentions. The Tribunal,on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence of appellsnt Jai Singh (A.W.1) and his witness Hari Singh (A.W.2),a!lowed the claim of the appeliant in part. The Tribunsi aliowed a sum of Rs. 45,500/- for loss of earning capacity; Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs. 5,000,/- for medical expenses and; Rs. 1500 for charges on indant. 3. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 57,OOQ/- to the appellant as compensafion forthe injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal held that the respondents were jointly and severally iiable to pay the compensation. The Tribunaf also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the ctaim Detition till reallzation. 4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, argues that a low compensation of Rs. 57.000./- was awarded to the appeilant/claimant, who sustained multiple serous jnjuries in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known the appelianVclaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establlsh the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. 5. The question whether the medical certlficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor v/ho 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 elReddv. reoorted in 12 SCC where in It was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsei 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 disabiiity certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabllity to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr,__Sydhakar Readv's medicai certificate was rejected by the Trlbunsl for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has de_iermLned_tne physical disabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the_deDosltjon of Dr. K.I iitra and av/arded a jusS and fair comDensatlon. The Hlah Court erred !n disturbina the same and enhan; the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set asids the impugned order and restore the avv-ard of the Claims 'ribunal. The respQndent-daimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensatlon swarded by the Tribyrsa!, if it has not already been withdrawn. 7. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Vs- Ydhvir Sinah anotiier, reDorted in f2W§)7 >, reiterated the same view vtfith the foilowing obsen/ations in para 11 : "11. The Certificate in question in thi's case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the eppellant. On what basis, such a certlficate was issued tvvo years after the accldent took pisce is not know. The author of ihe said certjficate had_not_bee" examined. Uniess the author of She certific_ate^examined himseif. it was not admissible in evjdence. Whether the dlsabiiity at 60% was ca!cu!ated on the bssis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act or othervvise Is not known. It is aiso not known as to Vt'hether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the contentlons raised before us had either been raisea' before the 'ribunai or the High Court. The Tribunai as also the Hiah Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by tbe parties. in absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabiiify 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." 8. As we have already mentioned that no Doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to prove the fact that the appelianydaimant - either sustained fracture or he suffered any permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by hirn. Even the documents 771 (certificates including the medical examination report) fiied by him were not legally proved. 3. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC Vs- P. Thirupal Reddy (SuRra) and Kumar alias Ralu Vs- Yudhvir Sinah and another (Supra), the certificate produced before the Tribunal were neither admissib!e In evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for assessment of the compensation in the case. 10 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation a'A'arded by the Tribunai. 11 T'ne appeal filed compensation, tt dismissed. 12 No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge the appeliant/ciaimant for enhancement of ', is liable to be dismissea' and is hereby Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge