^ DiVESION BENCH i-SrfB^fci9@i I- <?ILJ nutii Bi-e an lisc. Appeal (C) No. 331 ot Kumar Krishn Rai, aged about 26 years, S/o Kanjaiya Lai Rai, resident of 21, Mana Camp, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) Claimant Mahesh Wadhwanl, aged about 38 years, S/o Aabydaram Wadhwani, resident of Civil Line, House No.21/538, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) Neelam Enterprises Industrial Area, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) The New tndia Insurance Company Limited, Branch No.1 Madina Manzil, Katchhery Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Present : Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the appeltant. Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. i^rd The following order of '-the Court was passed by Appeilant Kumar Krishn Rai is seeking enhancement of the ;ompensation awarded by the 11 Additional Motor Accident <i£s. ...^^••^.~s ti •,3^'^.,, | .^' ^^ Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2006 passed in Claim Case No.05/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/-, claimed by the appellaRVclaimant by filing a claim petitioR under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injurles and the damage to hls motorcycle in the motor accident on 10.11.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,11,330/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) Shrl Rakesh Anthony, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,11.330/- only, though the appeiiant/claimant sustained multiple serlous injuries including fractures in the motor accident and his motorcycle also was badly damaged in the accident. 4) Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,11,330/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and ci'rcumstances of the present case. 5) Before the Tribunal the clalmant examined himseif alone as AW/1 in support of his case. For the reasons best known to the appeliant / claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by S»J-' the appellant'claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 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 for the assessment ofthe compensation came up for^consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was obsenf'ed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for t'ne 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 disabiiity 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 overiookina 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 physical disability at 15 per, cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and falr compensation. The Hjgh Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of, the Claims Tribunai. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, If it has not already been withdrawn." ^ 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following rations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. tt is not known as to whether the Civil 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 the sald certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whetherthe disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 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 hawng been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facte has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be. permitted to be raised for the first time." 8) The medical certificate -and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the doctors who had. issued those certificates in view of the above quoted dscta 1 ~^ of the Apex Court In the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thsrupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra) cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. In fact, DR GS Bachhu, who was sought to be examined by the claimant before the Tnbunal had issued the disability certificate on 03.05.2006, i.e. after about 1 % yeas of the accident which took placs on 10.11.2004. The claimant was never treated by Dr Bachhu. 9) The bilis and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.72,000/- only and the Tribuna! has awarded the entire amount of Rs.72,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant established the expenditure on repair of the motorcycle to the extent of Rs.24,330/- and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,330/- towards damage of the motorcycte. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 11) The appeal, filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma