OF c L ^. : CjaJmant Jagat Nishad about 35 years, S/o Pusau Nishad, Profession - potter, R/o iVSahamaya para, Aarang, PS Aarang, DEst.Raipur (C-G) Versus 1. Mohinder Slngh GIEi; aged about 60 years, S/o Kehar Singh Gitl, Profession - Truck Tanker Driver, R/o Hindustan Petroieum Corporatlon Ltd., Raipur Biiaspur Depot, Tarbahar, Bllaspur (CG) 2. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,^ Through the Di'visionaj Manager, Dlvislon Office, Bilaspur Depot, Tarbahar; BISaspur (CG) 3. The New India (nsurance .Company Ltd., Through the Divislon SVianager, Division Office, Kac'nahari Chov/k, JaiE Road, (CG) 173 of Act Present: Smt SomshukEa Sarkar, coun-sei for the ^:i^:£ Iiil» (13th The foElowing ,order of the Court by sv C.J.: Smt Sornshukia Sarkar, for the appeilant Is heard on admission. ^S as^- <: i:: ^' 2. Appeiiant Jagat [Mishad, is seeking enhancement of the compensation by the Thirteenth AdditlQnal Motor Accldent Tribuna! (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide 22.09.2005, in Ciaim IMo.1 3. As the of Rs.8,50,000/" claimed by the by flijng a under 1 66 of the Motor Vehides Act for the Injuries by him in the motor on 13.02.2004. the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.32,OOCs/- as cornpensation along wlth interest @ 7% per annum from the of fillng of the cjalm petitlon tiii the of actual payment. 4. Smt Sarkar, learned counse! for the appeilant vehemently that the Tribunal has erred In awarding iow co.mpensation of Rs.32,000/- oniy, though the appeliant/ daimant sustained muitipie serious Injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident. 5. The Tribunal awarded Rs.27,000/- towards medicai expenses; Rs.3;OOQ/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.2,000/- towards .jdr loss of Encome and thus, avvarde-d a totaS sum of Rs.32,,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 6. 'From 7 and 10 ofthe award, it becomes apparent that the cialmant, for the reasons known to him, neither examined any doctor before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries to have been by the appeliant / claimant in the motor accldent, nor any disabillty certiflcate was adduced in before the Tribuna!. \; 7. The question whether the medica! certificate produced by the claimant before the Tnbunat v</ithout examinina the Doctor who the certificate can be upon as substantive evldence for the of the compensatlon came up for consEderatlon the Apex Court in the of A.P.'-SRTC vs. P. Thlrupal reponed in 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsei for the respondent-dajmant vvho made an to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the Hjgh Court to reiy on the disabiiity certiflcate by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and e.nhance the compensation by the injury as permanent disabillty to be 45 per ce.nt. The High Court committed gross error in overiooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medica|,u§rt|f|uat^was__re|e?teu_b¥_the_Tribunaifor non-examination of that doctor. The_TrLbMnal,_has, determjned the phvsicai at 15 per cent on the of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mltra and a lust and fair comDensatiQrL_TJie__H!gh Court In dlsturblna the and enhancina the^compensaiion, Consequently, we a!io',v this set the Impugned order and restore the of the Ciai.ms Tribunai. The respondent- cialmant is ailowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribuna!, If it has not aiready withdrawn." 8. TE^e Apex Court in a recent dictum in the of vs. Yudhvtr and reported in 7 30S, the same view with the foliowing observations in 11: "11. The certificate in question in this was obtained after tv^/o years. it is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the treated the On such a certificate vvas two the took is not known. The author of the sald certlflcate^had ' not examined. UnSess the author of the iBii -•./• ^^ ^ certificate examined himseif. it was not admissibje In evjdence. Whether the disabjiity at 60% was caicutated on the basis of the provisions of the VVorkmen's Compensatton Act or otherwise is not knov/n. it is also not known as to whether he competent to Essue such a certtficate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunai as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parlies. in absence of any contention having been in to the appjjcablllty of the Workmen's Compensation Act v^hich; in our opinion, ex has no appijcation, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be for thefirsttlme." 9. in vlew of the above dlcta of the Apex Court In the of A.P. SRTC vs, P. Thirupal (Supra) and vs. Yudhvir and (Supra), the medical certificates filed by the appeiiant/ claimant before the Tribuna! without examinina the Doctor who those certiflcates, cannot be taken Into consideration for enhancement the compensation In the case. 10. The appeai, therefore, Is to be dismissed and is hereby summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge F padma