WGE CQL‘RT {EF C§§HATT§SGAR§§ A? EIL§$§3UR nguegngu nggx‘gg : £‘IGN ELt bfiRi RAJEEV GU? {A C J amm. Amwam Ciaimants §es§andem§ Ecm¢wsams ' n n!‘ a: The Rageev Gupm, QJ. Appeilan': Romigupta is seeking enhancement cf the campensaiian awarded by the Second Additianai Mater Accidewt /, @ Li’m 5 BLE S?€§% RA‘ANG%‘-"Th l QHA?‘& ERAixAn \,v rsS€ Aggeai Na. 4&5 QY iimé Hamloubta aana ancLt z2 wax: bia Anuyguym, CC»; ‘$§u$”} nmrwe Oi Umt uxuctu ard Tawers 1m Ric L— 44 GI§I:‘y, \JEbdEY — 1 Rapur 1a‘1 & Digit Ramur {vG3 Vefsug Lam Akaram Bhagai, 5V0 Akafam unagat n/O gGKW'iym V Tlai’iaSux. KaKa tank: Ens” Wa$hxm Vaharaahw San/ac Pm’ A11 bio Saiyad r<hush rd A]; Rfu L0k§3nya .mmSpuu Kmm ja r‘S r‘u & mm Vwama Dls‘a Washxm Maharashtra) lmurance Ca. Ltd, Akiia Maharashtfa, Thmugn Divisicmal Manager, Bivisiana: ffice, Mab Maha% GE Road, Raipur KEG) I h? rw‘vm muh ml The- Naional Branch Office MisceHanecus ameai uncQar Sec‘iian 173 9f mg My“? "Jemda fact bhfi AC1] va Khare CGLm$el MY {he anOEitaf‘T Sun 53f€6r¢unal halavvag ScmGi n§vvCaLy :xliz Shn Anand Gupta shame} for Fesnandent No 3 ORDER (22nd Febwaw, 29w} of the Csurt wa3 paseed by foiEowing order l i b m h @ Ciaims Tribunai, Raipur, (far Sher: iihe Tribunaii) vide award dated 12.04.2OG2 passed in Ciaim CaSe No.5G!2€}G’§. 2) A$ againsi the campensa€§c3n of RsEiOQGGD/n claimed by 'the gppeliant/ciaimant by fiiing a c§a§m peiition under Section 16S of the Mom? Vehicies Act f0¥ the injuries sustained by him m the matot’ accident en 08.95.200G, the Tribunal awarded a totai $um of I a Rs.2,75,8i0/— - aiong With interest (ii; 6% per annum tram the date oi iiiing 0:? the ciaim petitien tiii the datevof actuai payment. 3). Shri gditya Khare, iearned‘ couneei for the aeeeiiant vehemently érgueci that the Tribunai has erred in awarding iow ‘ compensation of Rs,2,75,8iD/- eniy: though the appeiianticiaimant 1 7 1 sustained muitipie serious; injuries inoiuding fractures in the motor ; accident resuiting in permanentdisabiiitv ’ 4) Shri Shreekumar Agrawai learned Senioi Advocate or‘ the J other hanci contended that the Tribunei has er ed in award i i exceesrve amount er Rs 2 ?5 810/—, thoaoh the aopeiiant could not establish that the injuries sustained by hire in the motor accident i reeuited in any permanent disabiiiiy. S) Fer the reasons best known to the aopeiiani / ciaimant; no ‘doctor was examine to ectao‘sh the natcrre of i re injuries saic‘ to ihave been sustained by the eopeiiant/cieimant in the motor reccroerrt eod the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent i i5} The Question whether the medica; certifica e oroduced by the toiairnant before the Tribunai without eAammino the Doctor who \\ r i \\ i § x iésued , the certificate can be rei‘xed . upon 61$ substan’iWe avidence Apr the assessmergi 0f *ne comgematian came up far c0n3§égfa§an l , . I befar% ‘ihe Apex Court 2;“. the: cage (3* AREERTC V3 E?‘ ?%‘aimg3&§ Le m; remrEeci in {23%} ”£2 $€£C 1’} whgrein it was chaerwd En mm 6 as undaf : 6 A'Tier hearing Eeamed caunssei far ’ihe reggondem w ciaiman’t whe made ar1 attempt i0 sugpafi the smier of the High CGurL we f‘mrj; :hat there was no iustifisat'ian for the ”High Ceurt is reiy on the disabiiiiy certificaie issueci by Er Sudhakar , Redd}; and enhance the oompense’iian by treeiing the iniury as permanent d§sab§iity to be. 45 pereem. The High Court committed emse efrm in the §aoe that m Sudhakar Redd\fs medicai certificate was ¥e§ected by the Tribunei for nan-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the ohysioa} disability at 15 oer cent on the basis of the deooettien of Er KM Mitre and awereed a tust and fair comgensat‘ron‘ The H’ h Court erred in dieturbine the same and enhancing the comeeneation. Consequentiy, we eiiow this appeai, set aside the impugned enter and restore the award of the Steirne Tribunet. The reseondent-etetmant ie eitowee to Withdraw the emeunt of oem‘eeneation awarded by the Tribunat, it tt has not atreae‘y been withdrawn.” ove¥1oe§<ing W f7) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the ease oi Raiesh Kumar aiias Twit: \ie Yudhvir Singh anti another, reoorte in {$63) 7 $Ct‘: 30$, reiterated the same View with the foiiowing observations in para 11 : 4-f—_TT i d “11. The certificate ih questian in this case was obtained after two years. hf is not knswn as to whet-her thé Civii Surgeon of the hospital treated the appeiiant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took piece is not known. The author of the said M certit'icate had not been examined. Uniess the author of the certificate examined himeeif, it was not admiséibie in evidence. Whetherthe disabiiity at 63% was caicuiated on the basis of the provisiens' 0f the Workmen‘e Compensation Act 6r etherwise is not known. it is aiso not knewn as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised befere the Tribunai or the High Court. The Tribunai as aiso the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materiais brought on record by the parties. in absence ef any contention having beenraised in regard to the appiicabiiity of the Wcrkmen’s Compensation Act which, in our oninion, ex facie has no appiication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” v8) in View oi the above quoted dicta oi the Apex Court in the cases of ARSRTC Vs P. Thirupai Raddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar aiias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another (supra). the medical i certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appeiiantfciaimant before the Tribunai without examining the Eoctors who had iss’ued the those certificates. cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. i i i i i i i i i i F i i "‘% i r r i 1 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the camgnensaiion awarded by the Tribunai. 1m The appeal; fiied by the appeHam/ciaimant for enhancement 0f $he compensation: therefore, is iiabie to be dismiseed ane is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs.