;LLANT IIVi< ^•1 >HARFv1A, Loha Singh, son aged about 24 years, -5, Bhitai, Tahsil isaarh. iban Singh, esidence of Street-4, and District 1 Dinesh Sharma, son of Shankar Lal Sharma, aged about 31 years, residence of Kargi Road, Ram Mandir Chowk, Patanpara, Police Station Kota, Distrlct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 Shahid Ahmad, son of Shabbir Ahmad (musaimaan) residence of M.1.G. 1/81 Hudko Bhilai, Tahsi! and District Durg, Chhattlsgarh (owner of vehictei 3 Branch Manager, National tnsurance Company Limited, Aakash Ganga, Supela Bhilai, Tahsii and District Chhattisgarh (insurance Inripi sction 173 ofthe 'h ^ 'resent: Shri Om P. Sahu, ieacned counsel for the appellant. e following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Om P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on admission. 2. Appeliant Loha Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 7'" Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 25.08.2007, passed in claim case No. 47/2005. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- ciaimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 16( of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 10.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a fota! sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri i, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in avi/ardins ion though the injuries .in the and coutd not attend to his duties for a period of appeilant/ ciaiman] motor accident anc Rs.1,500/- oniy as compensatl sustained muitiple serious about tv»'o months. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant spenl substantial amount on the treatmsnt of the injuries sustained by him in the moior accideht: 5. Before the Tribunal the ciaimant examined himself afone in support of his claim as AW1. For the re'asons best knovi/n to the appeilant/ claimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV ciaimant in the motor accldent and ihe fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor th?a C53rtifEr;?3fcs ^sn h?? r?alipsd ijnnn ?5^ ^fjb^fsni'iv^ i.S i^S ^/'St ^E E i^/CiS.Sr i«/Cit 1 U'C i ^?i) C;U ^uft^l-rEt Ci-ff ^9Uth^£?;iiBS iE.1 V^ £ividp:r>r;?i fnr t'hp ss^pcs^mpnf nf thp r^nnnnpn<satlr<!n r-.smp EEn f? f^ V l^l^arf l^^.r tU>t ir! E'ui &tt3i^lii/>i3->i51 iE'h/liE. l^li (.El^; <ii/'u?E I iS^^/i s'^f-t.^f^/i S \drr«i.il ES/ 'i^thf i rtion ie Apex Court In the case of A.P. SRTC irupa! Reddy, reported in K was observed in para 6 as under: !li "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant 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 Reddv and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court CQmmitted grQss_error_ln oyeriool<ina_the,fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reieciea,, bv the Tribunal for non- examiRation of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined tne, Dnysicai disabilitvat 15 per cent on the basls of the aeBosition_Qi_,Dr,_KJViJMitraAnd awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiflh Court erred jn_djstyr_b!ng_Jhe same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside. the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribuna!. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded bv the Trib.unal, If it has not been withdrawn. ^ 7. The Aoex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Raiesl ;umar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, re'iterated the same view with the foliowi observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civii 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 th^said _certiflcate had not been_examined. Unjess tne suthor of the certificate sxamined himself, it was not idmissible in e'/idence. Whether the disability at 60% was caiculated on the basis of t'ne provisions of t'ne 'Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise js not known. !t is aiso not known as to whsther he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentsons raised before us had either been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention havina been raised in rsgard 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 Dermittsd to be raised for the first 8. !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the and another (Supra), the medical certiricate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of t'ne comRensation in the case. z ;r &'*'%, ^ssssis»^ S i '^1 J •^ Ib^^.^' •'Sf^:S£a"f:'"-^ 9. We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal fiied by the appellanf ciaim; enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. -Sl'_'3bU Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge B