HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! SUNiL KUiVIAR SfNHA, J. Radhe Kaushik S/o. Arjun Kaushik, aged about 32 occupation - cuitivating R/o. Viilage - Dhamki, P.S. & Tah. Kawardha Dist. Kabirdham, (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar aaed about 20 years S/o. Ramavvtar Caste Lodhi, Occupation - Tractor Driver R/o. Gram Dhamki P.S. & Tah. Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) Ramawatar Kaushik, aged about 45 years S/o. Sarju Kaushik Occupation Cultivating, R/o. Gram Dhamkj P.S. & Tah. Kawardha Dist. Kabjrdham (C.G.) Sundaram Alijance Company Ltd. First Store Rachana Trade State S.N.D.T. Crossing Plot No. 64, Law College Road, Pune411004 Registeredoffice 21 Petuius Road, Chennai 600002. [ORMSDUM QF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THf ..Present: Shri Ram Nivas Pandey, learned counsel for the ~". appellant. None for the respondents though served. ith The following order of the Court ' was passed by -^'\ oijMjopoQ eqi SuiuiiUBXs }noq)w |eunqui ayisjo^sq }UBLUiBiO si|} Aq psonpojd steoyiyso leoipsuu 94} jsqisyM uossenb-sqi •g •A)!|!qes!p }U8ueiuj8d Aue ui psunssj ssunfui ssoy} IBI|} pe^ 34} pue lusppoe JO}OLU 94} ui uiiy Aq psureisns ussq 9Aei|0} pies saunfui.sy} p •*• sjnieu 941 ijsiiqeisa 0} psuiiuBxa SEM jopop ou 'oiiq o} UMOU>| issq suoseej syt joj 'uiiBio si^ jojjoddns Ul I|9SIU14 6uipn|OUI S9SS9U}IAi\ OM} psuiLuexs lUBLuieio sijt yfino^ 'jeunqui 34} sjo^sg ' 't? •A}!|!qes!p }U3UBLUJ8d ui Bui)|ns8J tusppoe joioiu s^ ui ssjnpej^ Buipniouj ssunl'U! snouss siditiniu psuieisns lUBiuiBio flueiisdde 341 qSnoyi A|UO -/si.fr'Z^'sy p uogesuBdLUOo MO| SuipjeMB ui psjja sei| ieunqui 8t|i ^eij^ panBje Aj^uaiusyaA }ue||9ddB st)} joj jssunoo psujesi 'AspUBcj SBAIN Luey uqg •£ •PJEMB 9iQ p Buissed jo 8}ep 9i|} uiojj sAep og io pouad e UIIJUM uoiiesusdiuoo Aed 0} sjnijBi s,jsjnsu! 34) uo '^usuiAed lenpe p 8)Bp 3i|t ||!t uojtffad iuie|o sqt jo 6u!iy p s^ep aq) LUOJJ ainuue jsd %^ issjsiui 4?!M 8uo|E IUBLUIEJO 341 oi uoHesusdtuoo SB -fGW'Z^'s^l i ( JO LUnS |e}0^ B pSPJBAtB leunqyi 34} 'SOOS" 10' IZ uo luspi.ooe jopuj stjt ui IUILJ Aq psuietsns ssynfui aijt joj pv sspiilsA JOton 841. }0 991 uoipss -'spun uoBitsd uireio E Suiiy Aq }UEUJ!E!O flueijsda'B sqi Aq p3LU!B|o -/009'6£'9'sy.(o uoitesusdiuoo sy} }suiB6e sv Z 'SOOS/Ol.'ON sseo UIIBIO ui psssed/gooz'eo'frl. PS}EP pjeme spiA (jeunqui at|}, yoi|s joj) (BLjpJBMe>j) LUELipjiqex 'ieunqui sujsBio siuepioov Jopi/y |Buoii!ppv 34} Aq pSpJBMB UOBBSUSdLUOO 81)} p lUSlUSOUBqUS SUIMSSS Sl >|iL|sne>j sypBy )ue||8ddv •hl,i3( issued the certificate can be relied upon as substanti'/e evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned 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 reiy on the disabiiity certificate issued by Dr..Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensafion by ;treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicaicertificate was rejected by the TribunaS for non-examination of_that_a9ctor._Th8j'nbyna[ has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition_Qf_Dr,_K,M,_MLtra_and awarded a just and fair compensatioR. The High Court erred in dlsturbina the same and_^nhanc[na the compensstjon. Consequentiy, 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 by the Tribunal, if it has not atready been wlthdravs/n." 6. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. 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 questton in this case was obtained after two years. It is not knovvn as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said c6rtifjcate_had not_ _been_ examjned. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, It was not_ admlssible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was nimmi calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compsnsation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certiflcate. 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. tn 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 flrst time." 7. In view of the above quoted dicta of tl^e;Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC vs. P. Thirupai Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medica! certificates produced by the appellant/ claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhahcement of the compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal filed by the appeilant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. Sd/- ••,, Chief JusUce ' Stoba Sani 3udg,e