r IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLAS ^a v B%^a'»»^ E SHRS SUNSL KUMAR S!M! A S rii^'ff^^^ ^iciHiiai ii IVISSC. ADDeal N0.741/200S Saian Kumar Sharma, S/o Dulichand Shsrma, Agsd about 35 yesrs, Occupation - Helper R/o Kotra Road p\ffl ^ n-c.^ Q^si^—s'h/rln\ t; UiSSt.l r\<fii^&i i l \^\p^ v/Fi 1 Arand'Kumar Kurmi, S/o Ragunandan Pd Kurmi, Aged about 28 years, Occupation -, Truck Driver, Truck No MP 26 D 4029 R/o Wireiess Coiony, Railway Quarter Qtr No.RF % C nil-icnil!- "''f~l\ Dli<BC?pUt \^\3/ 2 Sr Vidyut Yantri (DEE) TBDSE Railway oneiapui Throuah On, ;tt-, oOUtn c-astcffi 3 Bharat Mahaprabandhak, Central Raiiv/ay Bilaspur, Head Offlce fiisspiif - \^^j Isc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehlcles A-»$ •<©< f^ft.s ii?< Present Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for tne appeliant. None for the resoondents. (10tn Augast, 'a! The followina order the Court was passed by Appellant Sajan Kumar Sharma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, Raigarh (for short, "the Tribuna!") vide award dated 27.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.49/2002. |:3~3 e»sa •"sss'-s t\ \ ''•^' After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent - ctaimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification 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 disability to be 45 percent. The Hiah Court committed aross error in overtookina the fact that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determlned the phvsical disabilitv at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair compensation. The Hiah Court erred in disturbina the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we aliow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-clalmant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation avi/arded by the Tribunal, if it has not slready been withdrawn." The Apex Court in a recent dlctum in the case of Rajesh lar alias Raju Vs Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008} 7 SCC 305, reiterated the same view with the following observations inparall : "11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. tt is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was tssued two years after the accident took piace is not known. The author of the said certiTicate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself. it was v ' f, / n not admissibie in evidence. Whether the disabitity 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 known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had elther been raised before the Tribuna! or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard So the gppticabiiity of the Workmen's Compensation Aet which, in our opinion, ex fac/e has no apptication, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time." 7) ln view of the above quoted dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupai Reddy (supra) Rajesh Kumar alias Raiu Vs Yudhvir Sinah and another (suora), the medical certificate and the disability certificate produced by the appellant/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. S) V^e, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bytheTribunai. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ____ | g^y. Sd/- 1 SunU Kumar Sinha ChiefJustice i Judge paama