^^ F7-^- SHI li'RI '•I Oa-1 Doman Sahu, agsd about 12 years, S/o Harifal Sahu, (As the appellant is minor therefore on behalf of him the suit-friend is his father Harilai Sahu, aged about 30 years, S/o Kanta Prasad Sahu), R/o vlllage Nakti, P.S. Manacamp, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). ^.pr^MH^^IT'% •T&^'C' <t!st?£'ya»?^B,t'idS 'Sai' Ml) >^ s^, har Sahu, aged about 55 years, S/o Budharu Sahu, (Profession - tractor driver) R/o viilage Nakti, P.S. Manacamp, Tahsii & Dlstrict Ralpur (C.G.). Gajraj Sahu, (Profession tractor owner). R/o villaae Nakti P.S.- Manacamp Tahsi! & District fC- f~i\ \^.^3). •w Present: Smt. Somshukia Sarkar, counsei for the appeliant. 'he following order:. of' the Court was passed inS Smt. Somshukia Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admissi MppS ClaimsTr 't )[]>-> iman Sahu is seeking enhancement of the swarded by the 4* Additiona! Motor Accidents I, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide a'ward dated ssed in cialm case 'IW. 3. As against t'ne compensation of Rs.12,80,000./- claimed by appeilant/ claimant Doman Sahu, a boy aged about 12 years through his father Harilal Sahu, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, for the injuries sustained by the ciaimant boy Doman Sahu in the motor accident on 31.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing ofthe claim petitlon lill the a'ate of actual payment. 4. Smt. Somshukla Sarkar, iearned counse! for the appeliant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.15,0007- oniy, though the injuries and fracture sustained by claimant boy Doman Sahu in the motor accident resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 15%. In support whereof a disabilitv certificate (E-x.P/9) issyed by Dr.G.S.Bachhu was produced by the claimant before the Tribunai. 5. The Tribunal awarded R&j 0,000,'- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,0007- towards special diet; Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total sum cf Rs.15,000/- as compensation to'the claimant. 6. Though the claimant produced a disability certificate (Ex.P/9) issued by Dr. G.S. Bachhu before the Tribuna!, but no \ •l.. . 1-, ^ l'*"'"2.t.. !. "i^..vs:s^^^-~ doctor was examined to prove the contents of the said disability certificate. 7. The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribuna! without examinina the who issued ths certificate can be relied upon as substantive ividence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. j Uirr 'fVS' !^ •^ I; i 1 wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. Ar'ter hearing iearned counssl for the rsspondent- daimant 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 cn the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Rsddy ano' enhance the compensatioR by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The_ J-iigh _,Coyrt _committed _gross_ ^error_in overlookina the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examinat!on_oflhat aoctor, Jhe TriDunaiJias determined the physicat disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the a'eposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hia.h Court erred in disturbing the same 'and enhancina ihe compensation. Consequently, we ailow thls appeal, set aside 'the Impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is aliowed to withdrawthe amount.of compensation awarded by the Trlbunal, if it has not ilreaa'y been withdrawn." 8. The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesl Kumar Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in A-o 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same vievi' with the following observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. !t is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificatehad n_ot been_.examined, Untess the aytiOT_pf the certificate examined himself, it was not admissibie in evidence. VVhether the disabiiity at 60% basis of the provisions of the ion Act or otherwise is not known. to whether he was competent to i'ssue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the us had esther been raised was calculated on the Vt/orkmen's Compensati !t is also not known as before the Tribunal or the Hlgh CourS. The Tribunal as also the High Court, thersfore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. !n absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our oplnion, sx facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the firet 9. In view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the ai Reddy (Sup cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Kumar allas Raju v. Yudhvir Singli and another (Supra), the disability certiflcate (Ex.P/9) produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate, cannot be taken into consideration as substantive evidence for ^\' enhancement of the compensation in the case. ^\ 10. VVe, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 11. The appeal, therefore, is liable to b< hereby dismissed summarity. 8 Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siaha Judge subbu L