.F.R. 2. 3 Narendra kumar Pal, aged 16 years, S/o Ramkishan Pal, through legai guardian father Ramkishan, S/o Mansharam, age 41 years, Resident: Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG) Santosh Kumar Chakradhari, aged 35, S/o Dashrath Chakradhari, Occupation Driver of Truck, Resident: Kumhari, P.S. Urla, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG) Smt Priti Devi Badvani, W/o Late Jhamumal Badvani, OccupaSion - Owner of Truck, Resident: Fafadiha, Street No.3 Raipur, Tah & Distt. Raipur (CG) The National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road,Raipur (CG) Shri Aditya Khare, counse! for the appellant. ; None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. / Shri GVK Rao, counsel for respondent No.3. th The following order of the Court was passed by •'*•,. ySsiS^ $ i"sw S r;' {' i Motor Appellant - Narendra Kumar Pal, a minor boy aged about 16 years has filed this appeal through his father for of the CQmpensatlon. awarded by the 14 Addit'onai Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal a'ward dated 26.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.22/2004. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ciaimant by filing a claim petltion under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.08.2002, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with intersst @ 6% per innum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of ictual payn Shri Adi e, learned counsel for the apDel!anl vehemsnt!y argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries Including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4. Befcre the Tribunai, the appeliant/claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW/1 Narendra Kumar Pal and AW/2 Ramkishan Pal) in support of his claim. For the reasons best knpwn to the appeilant/ claimant and his father, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliant' claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any Dermanent disabiiltv. ^ ' 5. The question whether the medicai certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive eyidence for the assessment of the compensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para 6 as under: "6. A.fSer hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- ciaimant who made 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 compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed aross error in overlookina th.e fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddv's medical certifieate was rejecied bv the Tribunal for non- examination of t'nat doctor. The Tribynal has_detemiined the physical dlsabilitv at 1 5 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently; we aliow this appeal, set aslde the impugned order and restore ihe award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is ailowed to wtthdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not ^ / alre'adv been withdrawn." 'he Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh 7 SCC 305, reiterated the sam'e view with the following observations in para 11 : 7\ "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civi! Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, su'ch a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate- examined himself. it was not admissible In e'/idence. Whether the disability at 60% was ealcuiated on the. basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. !t is aiso not known 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 before the Tribunal or the Hiflh Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brouaht on record bv the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability 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." 7. In yiew of the abovs quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupa! Reddy (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another (Supra), the medicai certificate and the disability certificate produced by ths appellanf/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued tffe said certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement ofthe compensation in the case. 8. We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. L ^ 9. The appea! filed by the appeilanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to cqsts. Sd/- Chief Jusdce SUbbU Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge