ION'I L; 'Slrf'S.fl £?£^l£Jt!S >< "' i-t 1 »*>^!•'B l^'? icsiui<ai !<• Sunee! Sharma, son of Shri Late Ramprapan Sharma, aged about 38 years, resident of Domanhil Coilierv, PS Chirmiri, Tehsii Manendragarh, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) (naen s'wner Insurer Rajesh Kumar, son of Not known, aged about 35 years, resident of Haldibadi, Ghirmiri, Manendra.qarh, i'Chhattisaarh) PS Chirmlri ' Tehsli District 2 Vishwajeet Bhattacharya, son of Shri Nirmal Bhattacharya, a.qed about 31 years, resident of Kotari Godripara, PS Chjrmiri, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya (Chhattisaarh) 3 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambedkar Chowk, Distinct Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Misce!laneous ADDea! under Sectlon 173 of -ES;«S ^ prp^^n^- j 3 ^-sl.S'wS tL, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsei on behalf 01 Miss. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel forthe The follow the Court was passed bv s.wyass, 2"y, pi i 'B /S '^^^y ^S^-S^^' Appeliant Suneel Sharma is see.king enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.54/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,80,812/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 16( of the r\4otor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on11.07.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000./- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion til! the date of actua! payment. 3) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsei for the appellant vehementiv amued that the Tribunai has erred in av/ardina !ow cornpensation of Rs.1,22,000/- only though the appeilant/ c!aimant sustained muitipie serious injuries in the motor accident includins fractures of radlus, Ulna and Humerus bones of his left hand 4) Thouah the claimant examined as manv as tv/o witnesses inciuding himself before the Tribunal in support of his claim, for the reasons best known to the appelianb' clalmant, no doctor was examined to "stablish the nature of the injuries sald to have been susiained by the appellsnt/ daimant in fhe motor accident and the TacMhat those injurles resulted in any permanent disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who Issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evldence Tor the assessment of the compensation came UD for consideration '"'v't^ "^ '\ 's.^ 1 ^ ^ .'^ \^..^^ before the Apex Court in the case of / ITC v. P. Thir! ', rs 12 SCC 189, wherein it was obsep/ed in "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the Hlgh Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to reiy on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatlng the injury as permanent disabiiity to be 45 per cent. The Hlah Court committed aross error in overlookina the factjhat Dr^Sydhakar Reddv's medical-certificate was rejected bv the Tribunai.for non-examlnation of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the_Dhysical disabiiitv at 15 ger cent on the basis ofthe deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court errea_in dlsturbina the same and enhancina the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeal, sef aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondsnt-claimant is ailov/ed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the "ribunai, if it has not already been withdrawn." 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajes! ?^,i-iSii&££& 7 .Rr'r' •^ x is»?^W^dF reiterated the same view 'A'ith the following obser/ations in para 11 : "--• "11. The certificate in question in this case v.'as obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeilant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the iccident took piace Is not known. The author of the said certjficate had_not been_examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in -vjiia^. eyidence. VVhather the disabiiitv at 60% Vs/as calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workrnen's Compensation Act or otherwlse is not known. it is a!so not knovvn as to whether he was comgetent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us 'nad eithsr bsen raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the Hi.qh Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence or any contention having been raised En regard to the appllGabiIlty of the Workmen's Compensstion Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7) !n view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and /] t.i i medical certificates (Ex.P/2 and P/3) produced by the appellant/claimant bsfore th.e Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those 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 eompensation av/arded bytheTribuna!. 9) The appeal, therefore, Is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge subbu