\NV ^y- GH_COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT SHRI GUPTA, C.J. &• SHRS J. of Laxman S/o Bindeshwari, Affe 40 years Caste - Chamar R/o Viiiage Kumda, PS Bishrampur, Tahsil - Surajpur, Distt - Sarguja (CG) Versys 1. Dhansal S/o Late Bodhan Ram Aged 46 years Caste Gond, R/o Department Coiony Room No.578 at and PS Bishrampur, Tahsil - Surajpur, Distt Sarguja 2. The OrientaE insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near Ambedkar Park, IVIanendragarh at Ambikapur, Distt - Sarguja (CG) 173 of VeiiicSe Act, Present: $hri Neeraj Mehta, counsei for the appeliant. ORDE (10th April, The foilowjng order of the Court was passed by , C.J.: Shri Neeraj Mehta, iearned counsei for the appeiiant is heard on admisslon. 2) Appeiiant/ clairnant Laxman is seeking enhancement of the cornpensatlon awarded by the Second Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Surajpur, District Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.12.2008, passed in CEaim No.130/2007. 3) As agalnst the compensatlon of Rs.4,43.408/- ciairned by the appeilant/ cEaimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act for the injuries sustained by him In the motor accident on 19.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.23,389/- as compensation aiong wlth interest @ 7% per annum frorn the date of filing of the ciaim petition tjll the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri Neeraj Mehta, iearned counsei for the appeilant vehernentiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.23,389/- only, though appeiiant/ cialmant Laxman, sustained muitiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 5) The Tribuna! Awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pasn and suffering; Rs.3,389/- towards medicai expenses; Rs.2,000/" for conveyance; Rs.3,0007- for specia! diet; and Rs.5,000/- for future treatment and thus a totai sum of Rs.23,389/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant 6) For ths reasons best known the appeliant / ciaimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries to have been sustained by the appeiiant./ ciaimant In the motor accident and the fact that those Injurles resulted In any permanent disability. ^ 7) The question whether the medicai certtficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence for tlie assessment of the compensation came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein Et was observed in para 6 as under: "S. After hearing iearned counse! for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatlon for the Hlgh Court to rely on the disability certificate Issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the Enjury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error jn. overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medjcal certlficate v/as rejected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvslcal djsabllitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a lust and fair compensation. The Hloh Court errsd in disturbina the same ana_enhanang. the compensatlon. Consequentiy, we ailow thls appeai, set aside the Impugned order and restore the of the Cjaims Tribunai. The respondent- claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not aiready been wlthdrawn." 8) The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of Kumar Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh another; reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the follovving observatlons in psra 11 : " 11. The certjficate in question in thls case was obtained after two years. !t is not knovv'n as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate vvas two years after the accident took piace is not kno'wn. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the examined himseif. 11 not admlsslb[e v^ in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% v/as ca!culated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwlse 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 elther been raised before the Tribunai or the Hlgh Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. in absence of any contention havlng been raised in regard to the appSicabliity of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facle has no appiicatjon, the same, jn our opinion, cannot be permitted.to be raised for the first time." 9) in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the of A.P. SRTC v. P. ThirupaS Reddy (Supra) and alsas Raju v. Yudhvlr Singh and anotlier (Supra), the certificates produced before the Tribunal by the cialmants in the absence of examination of the Doctor issulng those certificates are neither admissibie In evidence nor can be taken into conslderation as substantive evidence for assessment/ enhancement of the compensatlon in the case. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for sn'nancement ofthe compensation av^arded by the Tribunai. 11) The appeai fiied by the appeilant/ ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu