CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI IRAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. ADpetlant CSaimant Misc.ADDealNQ.950of2004 - Jeevanlal Khandekar, S/o Shri Dhanaram Khandekar, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Kirit, Tehsil Nawagarh, Distt Janjgir- Champa (CG) j.,,. 1 Bhuwanesbwar Sahu, S/o Chhabilai Sahu, agsd about 25 years; R/oVillage Raipur, Teh Sakti, Police Station Sakti, Distt Janjgjr - Champa (CG) (Driver) 2 Raaheshyam ^rawal, S/o Shri i&ishna Kumar ftgrawal, R^ Station Road, BaktifF'olice Station Saktl, Distt Janjgir Champa(CG) ^' ' . ."''••••' (Owner) 3 United^ndia Insurance Company Ltd., Raig^rit, Behinel Gopi Talkles, Coilege Road^ Raigarh, Distt Raigarh (CG) Througft Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Korba, Diviston Office, in front of Maharahi Sehool, IVIain Road Korba, Tahsil & DisttKorba (CG) (insurer)- : , ' f •''•'.• ' '•:." • .• -. •• ". • " . •'.^:--: '••..'••:• •.'..::' '•:.. liSC.ABDealunderSection173oftheMcrtorVehicles Rresent : ,Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the :|:appellant. ::;,"... -:: :..;: •' .; ' i"''^: ': l': 1: ; ! Shri Dashrath Qupta. eounsel for respondent No.3. "^^•^ K\ rd The foilowing order of the Court was passed AppelianS Jeevanlai Khandekar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 10.08.2004, passedin Claim Case No.150/2003. 2) As against thecompensation ofRs.22,94,065/-, claimed by theappellant/claimantbyfiling aclaim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidenton 26.03.2003, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,063/- as eompensatlon along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment, in the.event of insurer's failure to pay amount of compensation within one month ofpassing of the award. 3) Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, iearned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,063/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accideni resulting in permanent disabiiity to theextentof15%. 4) Before the Tribunal.the Glaimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW-1 Jeevanlai andAW-2 Mohanlal) in support of hisclaim. Forthe reasons hest known to theappellant/ claimant, ;no doctorwas examined beforethe Tribunal to estatolish the nature ;of the injurles said to have been sustained by the elairnant in the ;^-Mi^..:fe. .aS! >-?ls^ / motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanenS disability. 5) The question whether the medical certificate produced bythe claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctor who issued the certificate can be relied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the comDensation came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs P. ThirupaE Reddy reported in (20051 12 SCC 189, wherein it was observed in para6as under: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent - claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we findthat there was no jystification forttie High Courtto reiy on thedisabilitycertificate issued by DrSudhakar Reddy andenhancethecompensationbytreating the injury as permahent disability to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error in overlookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certlflcate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that da;tor.__Tr!e_Tribynai has determined the ohysical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The Hign_CoLM erred_in__distu^ enhgncing the compensation. Consequently, we alldw thisappeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-clairhant is aiiowed to withdraw the amouht of compensation'^warded by the Tribunal, if it has not alreadv been withdrawn." m The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Rajesh Xumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCG 305, reiterated the same view with the foliowing observations in para 11 : "11. Thecertificate in question in this case v/as obtained after'twoyears. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident topk place is not known. The author of the said certificate had _not .teen examined^ Unless the aytlTorQf the certLficate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. WhetMerthe disabiiity at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise Is not known. it is aiso not known as to whether he was competent to issue sueh a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised beforetheTribunal orthe High Couri:. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties, In absenee of anycontention having been raised in reaard to the applicabiljty of the Workmen's Compensation Act whieh, in our opinion, exfacie has no application, the same, in our opinlon, cannot be permitted to be raised for the firsttime." 7) In view ofthe above quoted fffcte of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar .-••^" ••:'•.:'• ' . ' • : alias Raju Vs Yydhvir Singh and another (supra), the medical certificate and the disability certiftcate produeed &y the aDpeltant/claimant before the Tribunal without examining the Doctors who had issued those certificates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) We,therefore; do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal, fiied &y the appellant/claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation,therefore,.fails and is hereby^ismissed. 10) No order as to costs. .- Sd/- CiriefJustice Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ;s.V. •; » :-t^>: •;^^. M