• ^ SL! IG! Shivkumar S/o Dwarka Cast-Gond aged about 30 years, OccupatioR Agriculturist & Labour R/o village Lochan P.O.Marka Thana Pipariya, Tah. Kawardha, District Kabirdham <C.G.) • Vergus I. 1 Janak Ram Sahd, JS/o Bipatram sahu, Occupation Transporting R/o Tikarapara Raipur at present Address Koilari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah.Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Board Manager Board. Office Akashganga Complex Supela Bhiiai District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Renu Kochar, Counsei for the appeilant. Shri Anand Gupta, Counse! for respondent No.2. The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeai.for enhancement ofthe amount of compensationawarded in Claim Case No.26/2005 -n~' fiM E=9 )usueuiJ9d se Ajnfui 34} SuiieeJ) Aq uoi)BSuedtuoo 84} soueque pue Appsy je>ieypns 'JQ Aq psnssi aieoiii.ijeo Atiiiqesip eqi uo A|SJ 0} ynoo qBlH 94i JO^ uoiiBOijitsn? ou SEM sjaq} }eq} puy BM 'ynoo MGji-i sq} .(o jepjo sq} yoddns o} }diu9}}e ue spBLu oqM lueujieio-iuapuodsaj su,} joj [esunoo p3UJB3| Buueeq jsyv '9,, •.,- : japun se 9 eied ui p8AJ9sqo SBM4! uisjsqM '681. 33S ZS- fSOOS? "! pstiodej 'Appsy leanjju 'd '^ OlSdS 'd'V fi sseo sqi ui ynooxedv 81)1 s-iojsq uoiiBjapisuoo JQJ dn eLueo uoyesusdiuoo 945 jo iuaujssssse'eq} jo^ eouspiAe 9Ai}ue)sqns se uodn psiiaj aq ueo eieoijiyeo eqi penssi OI<M jopoaaq} BuiuiiiiexB inoq^m ]eunqui eq} ejo^sq lueiuiEio eqi Aq peonpo^d 9}eou!tJ80 leoipeiu aq} jeq^qm uoiisanb sqi (3) •}U9p!OOE JO}OLU 9L|i Ul LUILj Aq pauieisns saunfui leuosjed jo lunoooe uo uoiiesueduioo .)o lunoiue sq} se }ueiU!ep/}UB||3ddB eq} o}-/5^6'^|.'sy p Luns |B}O} e pspjeMe leunqui sq} 'JSUUBLU siij} u] •uoiieoiidde e^ Suiiy joj 89su3dx9 3iQ spJBAW} -/QOS'sy pue Suiujee jo SSQ| SPJEMO} -,'oo 1,3'sy 'siue-i6 io s6eq ?< [, jo ssoj SpjeMO} -/QOlZ'sy pue eoueAeAuoo spjefflo} -/OOOI-'sy '(peonpojd s^dieoaj jo siseq sqi uo) sesuedxs jB&ipeiu spJBMO} -/6ZSS'sy 'sSuueyns pue u!ed SPJBMO} -/ooo'Ol'sy jo iuns e p9pjeme 'pjooej uo souepiAS ||BJ9AO eij) o) 6ui>|oo| |eunqui siureio peujesi 94} i'9Joj9J8L|i 'jnoABj siq ui psnssi saieoyiyso/siueuinoop asoq} SAOjd 0} }ue[i3dde eqi Aq PSUIUUBXB sem JO}OOQ ou ?nq '(}u3iuiB3Jt siy 0} 6ui)e|9j seieoi.ijijao) s)U9Lunoop snoueA peijj 94 pue }U3p!ooe JO)QUU aq) ui SBjnpejj Bujpnioui sajjnfui AUBUJ pauiBtsns 94 (eq^ papueiuoo )uea!ie|o/}ue||edde eqi qBnoLji (i?) •SOOZ'frO'QZ uo 90B|d >|00} qoi^AA 'lUeppOE JOIOLU 9L<) Ul. LUiq Aq peuieisns seynfu! leuosjsd 9L|} JQ.( -/OOZ'i.O'S'sy JO uoiiBSUsdtuoo BuiLUiep '}ov ssioiqsA iov>W SMi 10 991. uoiioeg jspun uoi}!)9d LUIEIO e p3|y jueiuieio/iueiisddE aqi (e) '900S'£0'6Suo eqpjeMex touisia i.ue4pJ!qe» '('O'l'd) leunqui siuieio }U9p!oov JQloiAi |euo!}!ppy eq) Aq 900Z/£94'ON'¥'W ^u f3 ^:i;.:i?^ •&- y" M.A.No.765/2006 disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed aross error inovertooking the fact that Dr. SudhaRar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bvthe Tribunal for_non-examination of that doctor. The Tribuna! has determined the physical disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of_thedej30sition_Qf.Dj:._K.M^Miira and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we aiiow this appea.1, set aside the impygned order and restore the award of the Glaims Tribuna!. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, ifit has not already been withdrawn." (6) ' The Apex Court in a receni dictum m the case of Ra/esh Kumar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Slngh and anothQf, reported in f2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with:: t'ne follov/ing observations in para 11: . . ' '.! "ll.'The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civ'il Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeliant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued too years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the sajd certificate had not. been examined. Unless the author of the certiricate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of t'ne provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or othem'ise ss not known. It is also not know/n as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificafe. It even does not appear that the contentsons raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded or> the materials brought on record by the parties. In absecics of any contention having been rafeed in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex faeie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." -fvl. (7) As we have already mentioned, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the appellanVclaimant either sustained fracture or he suffered any permanent disability on icountoftheinjuriessustained^byhim. • na f- ^ ^/LA,No,76i/2006 y. .(8) In viewof the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and_gagsft Kumar alias Raiu v. Yudhvir Singh and anofher (Supra), the certificates produced before the Tribunal in-absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the certificate were neither admissibiff in evidence nor can be taken into consideration as substantive evidence forassessment ofthe compensation in the'case. (9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. (10) The appeal filed by the appeliant/claimant fo^ ehhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . . . (11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge