?>T Ftl IAI iiiL-^^^r'wrti. 1 fftR&M- MFiM'RI 1= C ^:^?L'^l£-SSife¥i. OWI'^i ^ln.^ ^3- niuiro CL.C: 31 ii'Z CHA! ADpeSiant Cia'mant !V!isc. Ku. Usha Rani Yadav, aaed about 18 yesrs, S/o Gangaram Yadav, R/o- Shantipara, Bus Stand, Bhiiai-3, Poiice Station-Bhilai-3, Durg (CG) S'^-.-^USiS Non-claimant; 1. Jabeer @ Javed, S/o-Jakir Khan, R/o sehind Dainsk Natobharat Press Raipur Moudhapra, Raipur, Polic( Station-Moudhapara, District-Raipur (CG) IDriver of Minibus registration NO.CG.04/E-0283] 2. Abdul Kadar, S/o Abdu! Sattar, R/o- Nurani Chowk, Rajatalab, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG) .FReaistered owner of Minibus reaistration NO.CG.04/E-0283] Proprietor-Roshan Aara, W/o H.A. Kaiim, Resident of Link Road, iiiaspur (CG) [Registered owner of vehicle Truck reaistration No.CG. 10/ZB-055^ -r. ComDan'] ted inciia insurance Limited, Through Divislona! Office, Divisional Manager, The United india insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chov;k, Raipur, District- flnsurer of vehicle Truck registration No.CG.10/ZB-0554 and MJnibus registration No.CG.04/E-0283] I-1' -3 MeETaa.randum ofAjiDeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Varun Sharma. counsel ror respondent No.3. iaui uuuii :^aiu^Eyi ^u sy 'he foilov/ina order of the Court was yassed Gupta, C., Appeilant - Ku Usha Rani Yadav is seeking enhc of the compensatlon awarded by the Fifth Addition A.ccident Ciaims Tribuna!, Raipur (for short 'the Tribui award dated 29.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.11 2. As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by t'ne appei'ant/claimant by filing a ciaim petitlon under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicies Act for t'ne injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 07.12.2003, the Tribuna! awarded a totai surn of Rs.11,800;'- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annurn from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition tili the date ofactual payment. 3. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsei for the appeisant vehemently araued that the Tribunai has erred in awardina !ow compensation of Rs.11,800/- only though the appeilant/claimant sasiained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the ciaimant examined herself ai-one as in su'DDort of her claim. For the reasons best 1 ce^^ ^ knov'/n to the appeiiant' ciaimant, no doctor was examined befors the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent iisabiiltv. s 'he question whether the medical certificate produced by the daimant before the Tribuna! y/ithout examlnin.q the Doctor •who issued the certificate can be relied - upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensatiqn came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. was observed in para 6 as under: "5. After hsaring learned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find t'nat t'nere was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disabillty certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court commjtted overiookina the fact that Dr. _Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal for non- examlnatlon ofthat doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physicsl disabiiity at 1 5 per cent on ths basis of the deDosition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awaraed_a_iusLand fair comoensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the sarne and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant ;s allowed to wlthdraw the amount of -•!,f!^'' ^s^ compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not alreadv been withdrawn." 6. The Apex Court tn a recent dictum in the case of Kumar v. Yudhvir Slngh and another, reportsd in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same vlew with the foilov/ins observations in para 11 : "11 Tha i . i i JiS rtincate in question in ttiis case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The_author of m^aaid certificate had not been examined. Unless the author oLthe certjficate examined himself, it was^jiat admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions QT the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is aiso not known as to whether he vvas competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not aopear that the contentions ralsed before us had either been ralsed before the Tribunai or the Hiflh Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention 'naving been raised iri regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act wh'ich, in our opinjon, ex facie has no appiication, ths same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7. ~ In view of tiie above quotea' dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlrupal Reddv )a ^^.iSsS^ &'s -aia¥;ii '*si 4 medica! certificates produced by the appeliant/ciaimaRt before the .^^.. ^:^. Tribunai without examlning the Doctors who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement 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 appeai filed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of th.e compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismlssed and i's hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Rangnath Sd/- Cuandrakar Judge SUbfcU