DIVSSIQN BENCH J'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. Cteimant Pramod Kumar Awasthi s/o Late Durvasa Prasad Awasthi aged about 35 years r/o Kududand PS Civil Lines Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. Driver Owner Insurer Ramnath Ram Bhagat S/o Jagguram Bhagat aged about 24 years r/o Om Zone, Shubham Vihar, District Bilaspur Chitranjan Ram S/o Late Bahira r/o Balachapar Tahsit and District Jashpur CG Branch Manager - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rajeev Plaza, Opposite Bus stand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Misc^ApBeaLynder Section 173 of thel4otpr Vehicles Act. Present: Shri A.V. Sridhar, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Anand Pandey, counsel for respondents No.1&2 Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. (15th; The following order of/ the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri A.V. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant Pramod Kumar Awasthi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.05.2007, passed in Claim Case No.124/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.11,80,000/- ctaimed by the appellanV claimant bv filina a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.01 .2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.27,650/- as compensation alona with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 4) Shri A.V. Sridhar, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.27,650/- oniy, though the appellant / claimant sustained muitiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 5) Though the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (Aw-1 Pramod Kumar and AW-2 Raj Kumar) in support of his claim before the Tribunat, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanU claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those Injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal wifhout 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 caseof A.P. SRTC v. •WC',=..:^.vsttss:--'. „ .sl t 'A si ^ N;'s P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (200S) 12SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned 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 per cent. The_ Hig.h_ Coyrt co_mmitted aross error in overlookinQ the fact thaLDr.Sudhakar Reddv's medical certjflcate was reiected by the Tribunal for non- examination_9f thaLdoctoL The Tribunal has determined the physicaI_disabllLtv at 15 per cent on the basis of the dep_osjtiQn_oL Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensatjon. The Hjgh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aliow 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 bv the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appe!iant. 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 .^€SW'3^ ,^^. '^, '^—s^/^:l *''>.. "w.^' '^s-.s^''-'' author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability 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. 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 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." 8) !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medical certificate produced by the appetlant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by ttie Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellanU claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herejiu-^^'iissed summarily. SdJ- . subbu c^e,0^ (&Ce Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge