^-L^ ^> Mpy^iisiiiL !T^ 1f^ j i^^'-''!! ye.' uiainiani N Ej SUNIL KU? Budhari, S/o Jethuram Caste - Gond aged about 30 years Occupation Agricuiturist & Labour R/o Village Lochan P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah Kaw'ardha - Distt Kabirdham (CG) 'dfW lUUIii 1 Janak Ram Sahu S./a Bipatram Sahu Occupation - Transporting R/o Tikarapara Raipur at present Address Koiiari P.0. Marka Thana Pipariya Tah Kawardha Distt Kabirdham (CG) 2 Natlonal Insurance Company Ltd Throuoh - Board Manager Board Office Akashganga Complex Supela Bhilai Distt Durg (CG) O'C^I.^U^U E flpf 1<l; :i; B ^tf Present: Shri Rsmnlvas Pandey, learned counsel forthe appeilant. Shri Anand Gupta, iearned counsel on beha'f of Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. IKUE!' tth (18'" Augiist, The following order of the Court was passed by Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) ADDellant - Budhari is seekinQ enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additlonal Motor Accidents Claims ^ Tribunal, Kawardha (for short 'the Tribunal') vide avvard dated 29.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2005. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,40,700/- claimed by t'ne appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petitlon under Section 16( of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accldent on 26.04.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,395/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum. 4) Shri Ramnivas Pandey, iearned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred. in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,395/- only, though the appellanu claimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the.motor accident, resulting in permanent disabilitv, 5) The clalmant, before the Tribunal, examlned himself AW-1. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ clai only as doctor was examined before the Tribuna! to estabtish the naturs of t'ne injuries said to have been sustained by the appeilanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent dlsabiSity. The question whether the medlcal certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examinina. the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reiied upon as substantive evidence loL'the assessment of the compensation came up for conslderation ;r? fh?a Anpv P.nr-rt in t'hp n^s^ nf ^-P Stp E ^/a ^ LE £^ ^^L/^y^ ^t^'^^1 tr U t iil i^ ^/C^i3^ WI ^'''^.nS' ai 'krf'a V. ^;5sf|ftv r^rst^rfpH in f^< .<•,.°^e-S'^.S u . E S:fu!!<l-tl l.^^'lui Ei E 'iSa' •^•'w 1189, wherein It Vtfas observed in pars H ^% E 'nrs inaer "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the resc claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we flnd that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensatlon by treating the injury as permanent disabllity to be 45 per cent. Ihe Hiah Court committed aross error in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical _ceroflcate_was relected by the Tribunai for.non-examlnatlon of that doctor. The Tribunai has determined the physical dlsabllity at 15 oer cent on ihe basis of the deposition.of Dr. K.M. Iviitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in distur'Dinfl me__same and enhancing the compensation. Consequentiy, we ailovv this appeai, set sside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunai, if tt has not already been withdrawn." 7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of 1 Kumar Raju v. Yudhvi lea iiterated the same view with the fo!!ov»'ina observations in Dara 11 "11. The certiflcate in question in this case was obtained after two vears. !t is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospitai treated the appeilant. On v/hat basis, such a certificate was issued frA'o years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the sasd certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himse'f. it was not admisslbie in evidence. Whether the disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis ofthe provisions oftheWorkmen's.CQmpensation Act or otherwise Is not known. It is aiso not known as to vvhether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It (^J even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had eit'n.er been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having been raised In regard to the applicabiilty 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." s) In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (Supra) and i Kumar Raju v. Yudhvir Singh another (Supra), the medical certificates produced by the appeilanVclaimant before the Tribunal without examinina the Doctors who had issued those certlficates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of ths compensation in t'ne case. . 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bvthe Tribunal. 10) 'The appeal filed by the appellant' ciaimant for enhancement of t'ne compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and !s -herebv dismissed summarilv. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge