AJEE GLEPTA5 CJ‘ L!“bl5Di-E llVl¥ D MEsc Aweai Rica 1’22 a? 2mm Réwanéenk kigen NUH Hpy A wmFAe—fn-‘g lUaHL .‘ ‘W S€AR%§ A? E§i§a$¥i§i§ BWE$§€3N EEWCE %-§ @é‘ Cal}??? G? CHEifA‘ nnA 9L! lDrhlf§klaTu $U$hinaAli D J I N%I‘\3EVHI ll 9E ifhl“u{\Hi’\ R; 9E3 ERI R Milwantm Bai, Wé’re of Sri Ramm (a; wad... t IvLu, Aa§cu a”: ”I...“ quUdL é at} qu ”A ycal3, .- Dln [\Iu Humml \wauu No.1;3. Fooiwari para, Bagb Bahara, D§s€i 1 FaahasamunuA f‘uG ki RSUS TV» Shankar Lai, Sio $ri Kishan Ram mamum, aged absut 40 years, Rm Tikranara. Sidharth Chowk, Raipur (CG) Farmananz’j Mawm, S/o Sr§ Ganaga Ram, Matiani, Aged aboa 4G years, RIG $hastrl Eazar. Shep No.20. Raimr Inns. K‘Ju] i lgvalkn (1A The New india msumnce CO Ltd, l k l I Madina Buiiding, (amahari Chowk, Rainur (CG) Bindes‘nwai‘ ?rasad (Q), Munna SIG ${i Ram La§ Rm, aged abaut 48 yearsj R/a Ward N05, Nayapara, Mahasamund \V U! Umendra Kumar Chandrakar, Sm Sri IW uuniu I, Dmam (‘1. uuaauraxm", .J 4% g ,-ggeu ..I abcm L 4:3 nr‘ vears, Rio Soram§n§hh gistz - MEIharm m¢amui . MAm The Grienta! insurance CG Lia, Madma aui§dirig, Kachahar§ Chowirz, Jai: Fieaai Raiwr (CG) li‘f‘\ s ‘ MisseEEaaewg AgaeaE amgek‘ Seci‘gsré $3 a? CIEEE’ nhialn $a‘ IC Hka-i. W ’§ Presem : Shri Dharmesh Sh¥§vas%ava, .ieamed ccunsei far the appe§ani E Nona- far resgondenis Ne. 1', 2, 4 9x ‘3‘ Shri Pras‘hant Jaiswai, iearned Seniar Counsei wiih 8hr: {‘éeeraj Pradham, 3&ame6; cawsei fw msgor‘idam M33. Shri Sudhir Agrawai and $hri rJ Suééa, ieamed caunaei .. €€Ihu a M N’Gx}. c {@‘és‘ $eptemi3en ZIE'ia} The Tmiowing order af the Ceua was passed by Rgeev Gaga, C.$. AppeHant Miiwantin Eai is seeking enhancement of the ccmpensation awarded by the Second Addiiionai Meter AscEdeni Cgaims Tribunai, Mahasamand (fer shm ‘t’he Tribunal?) Wde award dawd 22.08.2OG3, pa3$ed §n Cia§m Case No‘23/2002'. 2) As against the compensations? Rs.?,3G,OGGI—, c§aime§ by Ehe apgaeiiam/ciaimant by f%!§ng a ciaim petit‘éon under Saction 156 cf The Mate? Vehicies Act far the injuries sustained by her in ihe mats? accident on (35.63.2662, the Tribunai awaréed e total sum of Rs.3S!GGO/— as compensatien tc the cieiment aieng with iniereet @ Q96 per ennum from the daie of fiiing of ihe claim petition tiii the date at actuei payment. 3) Shri Dharmesh Shrivestava, iearned ceuneei fer the aepeiiant submitted that the Tribunai has erred in awarding iew compensation at Rs.36,t‘)Gt3i— Oniy though the appeitentl cieima .t ‘ . Nix H sustained muitipie serious injuries inciudmg fraciures in the mater accident, resuiting m permanent disabiiiiy to me extent of 60%. G 34) $hri Freshen: Jaiswal, Seamed Senior Cousne! wi:h Shri :Neeraj “radhae. leamed ccunse! for resasndeni N63 am Shi'i Sud‘nir Agrawa§ and Shr§ P Dutta, ieamed counse! fo’r {espendent N96 on the other ham} suppooed the award and oemended ma? ihe compenseiion of Rs.36,UQDI- awarded by :he Tribunai is iust V . and proper compensation in the facts and crrcumsrances a? the oresent case. 5) Befere the T‘ribunai, the ctaimant examined herseif atone ae AW—t in suoport of her ciaim. For the reasons best known to the appeilant l ctatmant, no deotor was examined before the Tirbunai to establish the nature of the injuries sa’rd to have been sustained by the eppeitant/ciaimant in the meter eccident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiiity. 6) The question whether the medioai certificate produced bv the ciaimant before the Tribunal without examining the iioctor who issued the certificate can be reiiect upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation came up fer consideration before the Apex Court in the case ct” AR‘SRTQ; Vs P. Thirueei Qectég; reported in {Ewe} t2 $66 tee: wherein it was observed in eara 6 as under : “6. Atter nearino teamed counsei for the respondent — ciaimant who made an attemot to support the order of the i—iigh Court: we find that ii ‘ there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disabiiitv certificate issued by Dr Sudhekar W Reddy and enhance the compensation by treatmg the injury as permanent disabilify $0 be 4S percent. The Hiuh Cami committed arses ermr‘irgw oveéIookin fhe fac‘ ' Rx medica§ cemficete was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examinatien of thaLdociorA. ’fhe Tvibunai ‘a r.‘ s dee cent on the basis of the denesitton of Dr KM Mitre and awarded e iust and fair comoeosation. The Hteh Court erred in déeturbtno the same and M enhancino the comoensation. Conseauentty: _ we anew this appeai, set aside the impugned order and restore the award 0t the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-ctaimant is aiiowee‘ to withdrew the amount bf cempeneation awarded by the tribunat, if it has not already been wtthdrawn.” Z} The Apex Court ina recent dictum in the case or" Rejesh Kumer aitas Raju Vs Yuehvir eingh amt another, reported in tZt‘wg} T $CC 305. reiterated the same view with the toiiowing observations in para M : “t 1t The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. it is not known as to whether the Civii Surgeon of the hosoitai treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piece is not known. W The author of the said -‘ certificate had not been examined. Uniess the thor of the certificate examin d himseit it i. N not admissible in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 59% was oaiouiated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmenis Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is also not Known as u as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear ihat the 'conientions raised befare us had either Eeen raised before the Tribunai er the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the meteriais brought on reooré by the parrées. in absence of any conrention having been raised in regard to the appiicabEEity of the Workmenis Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted t0 be raised for the first time.” 8} in View of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupat Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar atias Ratu Vs Yudhvir singh and ahother (supra), the medics! certificate and the disability certificate produced by the cieimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctors who had issued those certiticates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 9,) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the c‘ompensationawarded by the Trihunai. 10) The appeal, filed by the appeiiant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11') No order as to costs. e 9 sfi“ Chief Justice r’ padma