Pushpendra Patel and Shri Jeet Patel, counsei for the appeilant. None v. IQI e papjeAW jeunqui sy^ 'WOS'i-OZS uo ^uepiooe jopuj 9 W us & Anr.

Shri Pushpendra Patel and Shri Jeet Patel, counsei for the appeilant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ird(3ro September, ^. The foilowing order of the Court was Gupta, ^J. ^—^ SSt ?1 |8dnj|igi 'd ®A Oiyg'd'V 10 ®seo941 ui ^nOQ xadv 94^ ajopq uoj^ejapisuoo joj dn aiueo uojigsuediuoo sy; 10 yje^ussesss 944 jo^ 90U9piA9 aMiUS^sqns SB uodn p9i|9j aq ueo aieoyi&eo eqi penssi .'\ OI|M jopoa aqi 6u|U!LUBX9 inoyvm jBunqyi sq^ ejoieq ^ueuuieio 34i Aq psonpojd eieoiji^seo leojpsas 34^ jeyiaqM uoi^senb eyi (9 •A^iiqesip lueueujjad AUG ui paiinsaj seynfui ssoy^ i@q; pBj aqi pue ^uepioos JOIOLU sy^ u! ^ueuj!e|04US}j3da'5 sy^ Aq psuie^ns uesq 9Aey o^ pies ssyniui aui p sjnieu 8ui ysijqetss o^ jeunqui ey^ sjopq peuiujexs SBM jopop ou iiUBUi|B|o^u@j|9ddB 9L{^oi uMOU>i issq SUOSB9J sqi JOJ (^ "A^jjqesip lusueLujad ui eui+insej iu9pioo@ jopLU 94^ ui ssjnpsjj Suipniou! seunfu! snoyes 9jdj^niu peuseisns iueLUieiOAU8||sddB s^ qSnoq^ !A|UO -/009i8"sy P uoi^esusduoo A^O| DUipjBAi\e UE psjje sey ieunqsji eqi isi^ penSje AjiusLueyeA ^ueiiedde 941 joj lesunoo psujee-j (g •^ueuiAsd |8np5 ^o sisp 941 ||i^ uoiiipd tiiieio 34^ p 6u!|y 10 e^ep By} ujoj^ ujnuue jsd %Q @ ^sjeiuj q^iM 6uojg uoiiesuediuoo ss -/oog'Q'sy p uuns VSIQI e papjeAW jeunqui sy^ 'WOS'i-OZS uo ^uepiooe jopuj 9W us tuiq Aq pauiB^sns ssunfuj equo^ pv ssipiLjeA Jopj^ sy^ p 991, uoipss jspun uoiiusd uuiel0 s SuEiU AqiueiuiBp / ^jjsdde 9^ Aq peLUEBjo '-/ooo'CZ'SS'Sci j0 uoiiBSuediuoo sy^ ^suseSe sy (3 3 ps^ep PJBMB 9p|A- (.jeunqyi '9003/0 I.'ON 9S®0'^ESJO ui psssed ZQOZZO'iO ipies 'ieunqyi 'voys joj) 941, SLuieio ^uepsoov Jo^oyy |8uo|^ppv 941 Aq pepjeAAs uoiiBsusdujoo eqi p ^ueuaoueyus 6ui>(99S jBqdAiqs tUB||9ddv Reddy reported In (2005) 12 SCC 189, whereln it was observed in para 6 as under: "6.

After hearing learned counsel respondent - daimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that & there was no justiflcation for the Hlgh Court to reiy on the disabltity certificate issued by Dr Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the in|ury as permanent disabillty to be 45 percent. The High Court committed gross error In that Dr Sudhakar Reddv's overlookina the fact medical certificate was reiected bv the Tribuna! for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the Dhvsical disabiiity at 15 per cent on the basis of the deDosition of Dr KM Mitra and awarded a iust and fair combensation. The Hjah Court erred in disturblna the same and enhancina the compensation; Consequentiy, we allow this appeal, set asids the impugned order and restore the award' of the Claims Tribunai. The respondent-cSaimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not aiready been withdrawn.

"' c 6) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhvlr Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, rejterated the same view with the following observations In para 11 : ' \^- \' "11. The certificate Sn question in this case was it is not known as to ^btalned after two years. ^. wbether the Civll Surgeon of the hospitai treated Itftli l^ the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the acddent piace is not known. certificate had not been examined. Unlessthe The author of the said author of the certificate examined himself. it was not admissibie in evidence. Whetherthe dlsability at 60% was caiculated on the basls of provislons of the Workmen's Compensation Act !t is aiso pot known as or otherwlse is not known. to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. it even does not appear that contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunai or the High Gourt.

The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by In absence of any cohterttion having the psrties. been raised Jn regard to the applicablilty of the • Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has np appiicatson, the same, In our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for theflrst time. " 7) in view of the above quoted dlcta of the Apex Court in the cases ofA.P.SRTC Vs P. Thirupal Reddy (supra) Bajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs Yudhv'sr Singh and another (supra), the medica! certificate disabiiity certificate produced appeliant/clalmant before the Tribunal Vi/ithout examining the Doctors who had issued those certiflcates, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation in the case. 8) W^, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the \ compensatson awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeaj filed by the appellant / ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 'l '\