^ CJ. CHANDRAKAR,J M.A.(C'INo.80of2006 ADDeiiant Radha Bai Cialmant Aged about 45 years, W/o. Bharat Sahu, R/o. Sutiurku!J, P.S. B Tahsi! Biialgarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Ov-TEer 1. Bhagirathi, S/o. Babulal R/o, Nagarda P.S. & Tahsll Bllaiaarh, Raipur (C.G.) • . 2 New Indla Insurance Company Office R.D.A. Bulidjng, (C.G.) 3 Tejram, S/o. Puranlkram Saliu R/b. Sambatpur, P.S. Lalbag Dlst. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 Gupta Cement Agency Ganj Cho'vvk, Rajnandgaon Dist. Rajnandaaon. 5. Natlonal Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Offjce, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) : Shri A.C. Sahu, counsei for the None for the respondents. (19!n ^^ts^^ The foilowing order of the Court was passed by CJ. Appellant Radha Bai is seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Addltlonai Motor Accident Clalms Tribuna!, Baioda Bazar, Dlst. Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 29.10.2005, in Giaim No.167/2004. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs.4,10,000/-, clalmed by the appeiiant/cSaimant byfitlng a claim petitlon under Sectlon 166 of the ^4otor Vehicies Act for the injuries by her in the motor accident on 24.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annurn from the date of fijing of the claim petition til! the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri A.C. Sahu, counse! for t'ne appeliant vehemently that the Tribuna! has in awarding iovi/ compensation of Rs.12,000/- oniy, though the appeliant / ciaimant sustained multipie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident. 4) Before the Tribunai, the c!almant ex^msned as many as two witnesses (AW/1 Radha Bai and AW/2 Bharat Lal) in support of her claim. For the reasons best known to the appellant / ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have sustained by the appeSiant/daimant in the motor accldent and the fact that those injuries resulted in any dlsabiiity. 5) The question whether the medicai certlficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal wlthout examinlng the Doctor who issued the certificate can be reJied upon as substantlve evidence for the of the compensation up for consideration before the Apex Court in the of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal in 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed In 6 as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - cSalmant vvho an attempt to support the order of the High 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 compensatlon by treatina the injury as permanent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overJookina the fact that Dr'Sudhakar Reddv's Qiedicai certificate was reiected bv the Tribunai fbr non-examination of that doctor. The Tribuna! has detsrmined the phvsicai disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr ^M Mitra and awarded a iust and fair comDensatlon. The Hjah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhanclng the compensation. Consequentiy, we allow this appeai, set aside the Impugned order and restore the award of the Ciaims Tribunal. The respondent-cjaimant Is aEiovved 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 of Rajesh Raju Vs Yudhvir Stngh and another, reported in /^. '\ (2008) 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the foilowlng 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 Clvil 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 sald certiflcate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. it is also not knovvn as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. !t even does not appear that the contentions before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunal as a!so the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contentson having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act whlch, in our opinion, ex facle has no application, the same, sn our opinion, cannot be permltted 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 Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar Vs Yydhvlr Slngh- (supra), the medica! certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appeiiant/clalmant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideratlon for enhancement of the compensation in the case. '•\! subbu 8) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeai, flted by the appeilanVciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge