^' i.f M ^s^ :^«x Parasram Aged about 35 years Bsrha a Thana Chandr; S/o shsi Dabhara District Janjgir (Chhattisgarh) 1 Bhola Aged a Libhuram Yadav 2 Shyamial Aged about 37 years S/o Rajaram Satnami Both resident Taparda Thana Pusaur district Raigarh (CG) 'he United Sndia Insurance Company Ltd., Branch in front of Gopi Talkies Rasaarh (Chhattisaarh) Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, leamed counsel for the appeliant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though sen/ed. Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counse! for No.3. ith 'he following order of the Court was passed by ,-c. Appeliant Parasram is seekina enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Acctdents Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.11.2003, oassed in Claim Case No.14/2003. Abaouwemi*ii»Niiir»i|tf'**t 2) As against the compensation of Rs.18,02,437,'- ctajmed by the appellant/ claimant by flllng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the mofor accident on 31,03.2001, the Tribunal.awarded a tota! sum of R.s.57,743./- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. 3) Shri C.J.K. Rao, learned counsei for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lovi,' compensation of Rs.57,743/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the appeilant/ claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disabiiity. 5) Before the Tribunal, Shough the claimant examined as many is tw'o witnesses (AW1 Parasram and AW2 Lambodhar) in support of his ciaim, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ claimant, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/' claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity, 6) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence «Bt»iiUBaAit»' \fc: •] for the assessment of the compensation csme up for consideration berore the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Reddy, reported In (2005) 12 SCC 18S para 6 as under: srein it was observed in "6. After hearlng 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 rely on the disability certiflcate Issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross_error in overiookina the factt_hat Dr__Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected bv the Tribunal_fpr non-examination of that doctor. 'he Tribunai has determined the phvsical disabillty at 15 per_cent on the_basis or the deposition of Dr. K.M. awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiqh Court erred in disturbing the same and enhanclna the compensation. Consequently, we altow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to vyithdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh ;umar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (20081 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after tw'o vears. It is not known as to whether ths Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. . On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took p.iace is not known. The author of the said : iiiiiiniili •il miiiTtr'1*'. «., '^ t<N. -. ::A'Sa 3 '^ ^ ......^ / ,^y @ certificate had not been examined. Unless_t_he.author of the certificate sxamined himself, it was not admissiblejn evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was caiculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to v/hether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. Th.e Tribunai as also the Hi.qh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the appiicability 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 I.S IIISL UIIIS. 8) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar a!ias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medica! certificate produced by the appellant/claimant before the Tribuna! without examining the DQCtor who had issued the said certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in t'ne case. 9) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeai fited by the appellanf claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- -' ChiefJustice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ,,..^-"t^.^....