^ fiift .'i ^^' '•f •f- < ,,.1'"l^ Claimanl IIVI^U^ Ramsagar, S/o Prabhuram Kushwaha Aged about 35 years, Occupatlon- Agriculture and Service, R/o. Viliage Bahshipur, P.S. & Tahsi! Dlstrict Surguja (C.G.). NQn-ApDllcant ABI Pakuram @ Pappuram, S/o Katuram Katturam, Aged about 35 years, Occupation-Service, R/o. Village Kevra, P.S. Pratappur, TahsH Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (Ownert 'S Oi IVI Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsei for the appeiiant. "?7th v Ths ng order of the Court was passed by Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the 2) AppellanVciaimant Ramsagar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.04.2005, passed in C!aim 3) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,00,0007- claimed by the appeilant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the Injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 07.11.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along vvith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 4) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the ippeilant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.50,000/- only, though fhe appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries includinc fractures in the motor accident. 5) in support of his claim petition, the appeliant/ciaimant though examined as many as three witnesses including himself before the Tribunal, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ ciaimant, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of ths injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those inj'uries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 6) TlTS question whether the medica! certiflcate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor - 3- who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideratlon before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under i"i"Cil, "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- daimant 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 disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The High__Court committed___ aross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medicai certlficate was reiected bv the Tribunai for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the phvsical disabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the depQS[t!on_of Dr. K.M. IViitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. Tne.Hi.gn Court errecLJn disturbing the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, vsfe aliovv this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore ihe award of the Ciaims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, 'f it has not already been wlthdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of RajesS [umar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the followinq obsereations in para 11 : "11.. The certificate in question in this case was obt^ined after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon pf the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after t'ne accident took place is npt known. The author of the said certificate, had not been examined. Unless the 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 otheri/vise is not known. ^:.—r (^ It is also not known as to whether he was competent to Essue such a certificate. It eyen 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 materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensatlon Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no ap.Dllcation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first i) in vievrf of the above quoted dicta of ths Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! 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. 3) 'We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal fiied by the appeliant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summari Sd/- -,» ; ! [ ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbi