lll iLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & A.No. 168 of 2005 Sukhdas Kuldeep S/o Murha, Aged about 58 years, R/o Village Nagarnar, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) Premanth Nag, S/o Prabhunath Nag; Aged about 22 years, R/o Kumhapara, Jagdalpyr, Dist : Bastar (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o C.P. Kushwaha, R/o Balaji Ward, Jhankar Talkies Jagdalpur, Di Bastar (C.G.) Santosh Kushwaha S/o Late Kushwaha, R/o Balaji Ward, Jhankar Talkies Jagdalpur, Dist : iastar (C.G.) The Oriental insurance Company, Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Jagdaipur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) isc. Appeal ynder SectiorLlTS oftheMotor Vehictes Act. 3 Near .p. 4 Present: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appeilant. None for respondent No. 1 though served. Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No. 4. (15th December,2009) The following order of the Court was passed Appeltant - Sukhdas Kuldeep is seeking enhancement of the comDensation awarded bv the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai :iSS» \T Jagdafpur (for short 'the Tribunal') yide award dated 02.1 1.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 21/2003. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.10.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.11,500/- as compensation along with Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, the Tribunal has erred In awarding low compensation of Rs.11,5007- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious Injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4. Before the Tribunal thouah the claimant examined himself as AW-1 in support of his claim, for the reasons best known him, no doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeltant/ c!aimant in the moior accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in efny permanent dlssbijjty. 5. The question whether the medical certiricate produced by the clalmant before the Tribunal without.examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration )ex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thi \^ F, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in as under: "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 Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact_that__Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected by the Tribunal ror non-examination of that doctor. ~he TribunaLhas._determined_the_phYs[cal disabilitv at 15 oer^snt pnjhe basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hia.h Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ciaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with'the foliowing 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 Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took placs is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiitv at 60% was calculated on "i^'^S.^f.:^ 'W '•":^f^^\ ^ '%> •F J,' J.' the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is afso 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 elther been raised before the Tribunal or the Hiah Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicabiiity 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. 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 alias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another (Supra), the medica! certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunat without examining the Doctors who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribuna!. 9. The appeal filed 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. - subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge