-^ Cl Jai Kumar Borkar son of late Rao Borkar, aged about 15 years, Minor through natural guardian mother Smt Pushpa Meshram widow of Mukund Rao meshram, resident of Sakhtawar Chai, Tulsipur Ward No.16, Tahsil and District. Rajnandgaon (CG) Thangra] son of Muni Appan Tamil, aged 21 years, Resident of Kutam Patti, Post Kulam Patti, Police Station Tebur, Tahsil Sekeri (Sakagiri) District Sailam ?'nl5ns3f"t .i K Polinivel son of Karupannaan, resident of 37-A, New Pallipalayam Rcad, Momarnalayam, Chiruchaigaud, Namakkai-638183 Roya! Sundram Alliance Insurance Compai i l.ft":*-^^ AQ. IA/!*'^^. S LilTIIIGu, 4D Vv'nile Chennai, 600014 Present : Shri H.B. Agrawai, Senior Counsei with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S. .Rajput and Shri Goutam Bhaduri respondent No.3. 11st ss^. 1^ '"^ ^' © M.A.No.30 of 2006 e following order of the Court was passed by t-a f* ILffl^B <L?| Appellant/ claimant Jai Kumar Borkar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award led 28.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.: 2) As against the compensation of Rs claimed by the appeilant/claiFnant by fillng a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.06.2004, the Tribunal-awarded a tota! sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the claimant alon$ of filina of the claim Detith interest @ 9% per annum from the till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsei with Smt. K4eera Jaisv/ai, iearned counset for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.10,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained muftiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 4) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was exsmined before the Tribunal for establishing the number and nature of the injuries claimed to have been suste ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resytted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued {he certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence -7 y 3 I.A. No.30 of 2006 for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thi teddy reported in 189, whereln it was observe« maer: "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 rely OR the disability certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability, to be 45 percent. The High Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physica! disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hlgh__Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, 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 already been withdrawn. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesl jr Singh and another, reported in .^t 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view Vi/ith the followini observations in para 11 : BETTT 1 .A.No.30 of 2006 "11. The certificate in question ih this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued frjvo years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said cerSificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability 60% was calcuiated on the basis of the or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether 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. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention havins 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 first time." 7) The medlcal certificates produced by the ctaimant before the Tribunal,without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, in view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra), cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. l.A. No.30 of 2006 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appea! flled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10). No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Subbu