OF AT ^. Cl-almant 5BLE SHRI CJ. 'BLE SHRI Janakrarn Srivas, S/o Dukhlram Shnvas, 62 R/o House No.G-6; Government Quarter, Kohdlya, PS Dist (CG). •^ 1 Das Valshnu (Driver), S/o BD Valshnu, 26 y-ears, R/o No.E-32, CoEony,' . Darri, (CG) \ 2 _ Vinay Chakravarty (Ovvner) S/o Vljay Chakravarty, 30 years, R/o Pradeep Traders, FViain Road, Korba PS Korba, Dist Korba(CG) 3 D'ivlsjonai i'Vjanager, Un.ited india Co. Ltd (Insurer) TP Korba, Di-st Korba (CG) 173 of : Shri HS Ahluwaiia, counsel forthe aDpeiiant. None for i'vlo.1 and 2 though •Shrl Sudhsr Aarawai, counsei on or Shri Gupta, for respondent No.3, •6th 2 ^ The foilowing of ths Court by C.J. Appeliant Janakram Srivas is enhancernent of the compensation by the Additionai Motor Accldent Cialms Tribunai, Korba (for short "the Tribunal') vide award 20.09.2004, in Ciaim No. 121/2003. 2) As the compensation of Rs.15,95,000/-, ciaimed by the appeliant/ciaimant by fiiing a clalm petition under Section 1 66 of the Moior Vehlcles Act for the Injuries by him in the motor accident on 13.05.2003, the Tribunai a sum of Rs.11,668/" as compensation. 4) Shri HS Ahiuwaiia, iearned counsei for the vehementiy that the Tribunai has erred In low compensatlon of Rs.11,668/- oniy, though the appeiiant/ciaimant sustained muitipie serlous Injuries inciudlng fractures in the motor accldent resultlng in permanent disability to the of 27%. 5) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsei on behaif of' Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 the Unjted india insurance Co.m.pany on .the other hand supported the award and contended that as the ciaimant couid not estabiish that the Injuries by him in the motor accident resuited in any.permanent disabiiity, the compensation of Rs.1 1,668/- by the TribunaE is just and proper compensation in the and circumstances of the 6) the Tribunaj, the claimant himseif alone as' AVV71 In of his ciaim. For the kno-wn to the 3 f ^ ^ / claimant, no doctor vvas examined befbre the Tribunal to estabiish t'ne nature of the injuries to have been sustained by hlm in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries in any permanent disabiiity. 7) The question whether the certificate profiuced by the daimant before the Tribunai wsthout examining the Doctor vi/ho the can be upon as substantive evidence fbr the of the compensation'came up for conslderation the Court In of A.P.SRTC Vs P. in 12 189, whereln it vvas observed in 6 as under: "6. After hearing counsei for the respondent - clalmant vi/ho made an attempt to support t'ne order of the High Court, we find that there was no justificatlon for the High Court to reiy on the disabiilty certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatlon by treating t'ne Injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 percent.- The High Court committed gross error m overiookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medic.ai certificate was rejected by the Tribunffll for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the phvsicaj disabiiitv at 1§_£er cent on the of the de.DOsition of Dr KM M'rtra and awarded a just and falr compensation. Tne ijiah Court erred in dlsturbina the same_^nd enhancing the com.Densation, Consequentiy, we aiiow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims. Tribunai. The respondent-ciaimant is to withdraw 4 -&. ^' the amount of compensation by the Tribunai, if It hss not ajready been withdrawn." 8). The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Vs Yudtivir another., reported in 7 reiterated the vlew with the foliowiny observatlons In para 11 : "11. The certificate in questlon in this was obtained after two years. it Is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what such a certlficate was issued two a.fter the accident took is not known. The author of the cemflcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himseif; It was not admissibie In evldence. VVhether the dlsabijity at 60% calcuiated on the of the provisions of the Workmen's Cornpensation Act or otherwise is not known. it Is also not known as to whether he v/as competent to such a certiflcate. it even not appear that the contentions us had raisea^efore the Trlbunal or the Hlgh Court. The Tribunal as the Hlah Court, therefore, on the brouaht on record by the in of any contentlon h.avlna in to the appljcabjil.ty of. the Workmen's Compensatlon Act which, in our opinion, ex no appiication, the same; In our opinlon; cannot be permitted to be for the first tlme." 9) jn view of the above quoted or the Apex Court In the of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thlrupal (supra) Kumar [ . -^ Vs Yudhvir and (suDr&tr^he and the by the appellant/ciajmant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors Eiad those certificates, cannot be into for enhancement ofthecompensation'in the case... 10) VVe,' therefore, do not find any tbr enhancement of the compensation bythe Tribunai. 11) The fiied by the appeiianVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is to be and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order a.s to cost-s. Sd/- Chief Justice SdA ' r 1R.N. Chandrakar ^ Judge J padma ^-