HIRH fl "IS^BnS.i'e V,^' f^r^OA ^'^iB^Eil r wnnjtt i .RH AT •i'Si ION5RSfea s°"S*s*'S S ^t Misc. (C 5 No.54 of 21 ApDeJjanj Satish Singh Bais, S./o Shri Narayan Singh Bais, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Kusumkasa, Thana - Raihara, District Durc (C.G.). Presently at Kabir Nagar, Ra'pur (C.G.) - Claimant. Respondenti VE Uttarn Kumar aged about 28 vears, S./o Shri Pyarelal Mahar, R/o Surya Nagar, Behind BSP Hospital, Power House, Bhilai, Thana Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.) Driver. Mohammed Subhan, S/o FViohammed Ismail R/o Gandhi C-howk, Camp No.2, Power House, Fish Market, Bhilai, Thana- Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.) Ne'/i' india Assurance Company Limlted, Through Dtvisional Manager, Branch Office No.2 R.D.A. Butlding, Bajarsng Market, RaipurfC.G.). insurer. Misceilaneous 1 U)f 17't 1 S ^S U^ 6.^3' pr^-^^r^f • ' ^hri ^ ?^ Pffll^Eif nftiiriispl fr'sr fhp ^nsnpil^?" B ••^•1-y^wt li. , •ku'i U . 'lu' I, ^-? . l' -l(<ij^ui E,; l./'i.^^^t ft.i;<i/i l^'t ^fE^o i^s^*l'^trfti6-tiii^> (7th T'fFhe following order of the Court was passed by ^aji S'nri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appeilant is heara' on admlssion. 2. Appellant - Satish Singh Bais is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by VZ Addltional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.05.2008, passsd in C!aim Case No. 159/2007. 3. As agalnst the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- claimed by the appeSlant/claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 1 S6 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accsdent on 25.01 .2007, the TribunaE awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,57,514/- as compensation along with interest g 7.5% per annum from the date of fi!ing of the claim petltion til! the dste of actua! payment. 4. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counse! for the appellant vehementiy a.rgued that th.e Tribunai has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.1,57,514/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multipie serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resuitlng In permanent disability. 5. For the reasons best known to the appeiianV claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the naturs of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeiiant/ claimant in the rnotor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disabiiity. I \>-y "•--^»»"^^' v^ 6. The question whetherthe medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunai without examining the Doctor who issued the certlficate can be relied upon as substantivs evidence for the assessment of the 'compensation came up for conslderation before the Apex Court In the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Retidy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearina learned counsei for the respondent- clalmant v/ho made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find t'nat there was no justsfication for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disabi!ity to be 45 per cent. Tne Hiah Court committed aross error in overtooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medica! certificate was rsjected by the Tribunal for non- examinatjon of that doctor. The Tribunai has determin^ed the,_@ny_sicai disability at 1& p8_r_cent on the basis ofthe ae0QsitiQn^)f Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. ConsequentSy, we aiiow this appeal, set aside the Impugned order and restore ths award of the Clalms Tribunai. Ths ?.^./"i i?*'i-sp<^-'^ /^.^^sT ?^/t-**^ i^ta4r Ei'"'* ^t" i/^i .Jl f^~li^*^ ^i?^ 1. J'. F:^<i^;^^ F'-FS ^ A ^ [>?r^^i •^S F'y^ ^^ T i r^spQrifisni-cEcitmsni. ^s suovvsu LQ wis.nur^w cns ciuiuuiii <j! compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aireadv been withdrawn." "T-; 1 nhe Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of v. Yudhvir Singh another, reported in 7 305, relterated the same view wlth the fol'owing observations in para 11 : "11. The certificate in question in this case was o'btained after two vears. 11 is not known as to whether the Civii Sui^eon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certlficate was Issued tv.'o years ifter the accident took place is not known. The author of the_sa!d certificate had not been examined. U'niess the author of the certlficate examined himself, it was not !flnills%lhl^ in ?svirl?snrt?s VA/hpfhs'f th^ ril^ahilifv ^t RHi^ iUl i JiO'Oli.^iS; ii i ^ Vi^^i J^fC;, V V i iC;i.i ISr; i,S j^ ^ iOCXi<'iiii.J was calcuiatsd on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t is also not known as to whether he was competent to i?tSE l^a %.t sr:h ?. r:^rtifirl-.5'f'?5 If QV^II rfrs^?s nnf ??nnp?t1' th^t fhi [la^i.^US; •^ii-i^'i i Qt ^ii./E S.S! E^/Cis.S?. i f. t-'VSrit 'U.V^-'-'-S E E'u>5. ErfLiwSi-/S.rCiii t.ftS.n.i. ii.i i' contenfions raised before us had either been raised 'befcre the Tribuna! or the Hiah Court. The Tribuna] as Sit^n !"h?a Hlnh PtHijft ihpr^fnrp- nrQf^ppri£srl on thp .OU l; i-C? i ' i"--ii i S^UUf l. S.33S;iC:iu'iC?. ikafi T-Tiwr^SSi^^U \^) i S.,i i!S %/ ...... -^ J ^ materials brouaht on record by the parties. In absence of an'y contention havina been raised in regard to t'ne appilcability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facse has no apptication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first 8. In vlew of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the nirupai Keaay (supra) ana Ihvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificates produced by the appeilant/ciaimant before the •Tribunai wlthout examining the Doctors who had issued the said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancemeni of the compensation in the case. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ?5^w^^... '•<•::•. -g?"'/^?^. --t^ /'/"^s". \. 10. The appeal fiied by the appeltant/ciaimant for enhancement o'r the coinpensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is SUbbl hsriSihvf r'H<£^T3lc:%i2:H <s! srT'in^'sf.rllv ii^l^^V UiiSia ttO-iSGU -S&Ut i H UGti Ei '•ic' • Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge