THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3008 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the compensation awarded in O.P.No.12 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated 27.02.2004, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,11,459/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.08.1997, the claimant-injured was travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 4275, being employed as a Cleaner in the said lorry, which was proceeding from K.Samudram to Bibinagar and as the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a high speed in a negligent manner, he lost control and hit the trees by the road side, by the impact of which, the granite stone from the body of the lorry rammed into the cabin and caused grievous injuries to the claimant and also to the driver of the lorry. The case of the claimant was that he took treatment for four months and several operations were conducted and he was bed ridden for about six months, for which he incurred huge amount towards medical expenditure. Hence, the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. It is to be noted that Ex.A-3 is the injury certificate which shows that the claimant suffered four injuries, which are as follows: - “1. Crush injury right upper limb axial shoulder to middle side of elbow. 2. Swelling of left side chest. 3. Lacerated injury ½” x ¼” right knee joint. 4. Inside pain on upper portion of back.” Injury No.1 is found to be a grievous one. Ex.A-5 relates to the claimant’s admission in NIMS on 30.07.1998, i.e., one year after the accident, which discloses that the petitioner continued to take treatment for the injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a very meager amount of compensation towards permanent disability on the ground that the doctor who treated the claimant was not examined and in not considering the disability certificate-Ex.A-10 issued by the Medical Board of Warangal District. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Syed Saleem V. Abdul Shukur[1] wherein it is held that there is no requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the victim and that disability certificate need not be obtained from the very same doctor. Assessment of disability can be made and certificate can be given by any qualified medical practitioner. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the doctor who treated the claimant was not examined, the assessment of compensation towards permanent disability as arrived at by the Tribunal need not be interfered with. In support thereof, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Yudhvir Singh[2]. It is to be noted that in the said case, the author of the certificate was not examined. However, in the instant case, a medical practitioner who issued Ex.A-16-injury certificate was examined and the disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board was pressed into service though the doctor who treated the claimant was not examined to show the percentage of disability sustained by the claimant due to the said injuries sustained in the said accident. However, P.W-2 is Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, who deposed that he issued Ex.A-16- disability certificate to the claimant and further stated that the claimant suffered a permanent disability. By following the judgment of this Court in Syed Saleem’s case (1 supra), it can be said that the disability suffered by the claimant is proved by examining a qualified doctor. Hence, it is to be held that the Tribunal erred in not accepting the disability for the reason that P.W-2 is not the doctor who treated the claimant. As per the ratio laid down by this Court in Syed Saleem’s case, the disability sustained by the claimant is proved. As regards the earnings of the claimant, taking into account the fact that he was working as a Cleaner in the lorry, his monthly income can be taken at Rs.1,500/-. As the claimant sustained 70% disability, 70% of Rs.1,500 comes to Rs.1,050/-, which works out to Rs.12,600/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of ‘18’, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,26,800/- towards the permanent disability. In other words, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability is enhanced to Rs.2,26,800/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing the said O.P. before the Tribunal till the date of realization. In all other respects and aspects, the impugned order shall stands unaltered. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 23rd September 2010 dr [1] 2007 (1) ALT 648 [2] (2008) 7 SCC 305