-1- C.M.A. No.1996/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1996 of 2010. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur V E R S U S Sultan Singh son of Shri Bhim Sain and Others Date of Judgment :::: 11/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Shri Satish Chandra Mittal, Counsel for appellant-RSRTC *** Per Court : This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-RSRTC being aggrieved by the award dated 20th April 2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Fast Track No.1 Bharatpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1/2009 by which the award in favour of the claimant to the extent of Rs.3,75,800/- has been passed with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC is that the learned Tribunal has erred in accepting the Disability Certificate, as the same has been issued by the doctor, who, in fact, did not treat the injured for the injuries. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, suffice it to say that the Dr. O.P. Gupta, who issued the certificate has been examined in the evidence and he has certified the disability to be 37.4% in the case of the appellant owning to the -2- C.M.A. No.1996/2010 injuries suffered by the claimant. It is not necessary that the person who has actually treated the injured alone will be held competent to issue the Disability Certificate. Many a time there are Boards, which are constituted for this purpose and not necessarily the doctor who has treated patient or the injured would be a member of that Board, as such even experts who have not actually treated the injured can give an opinion and certify the extent of disability based upon their own findings and assessment. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award or substance in the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC is that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a case of composite negligence involving the bus of the appellant as well as the truck owned by the respondent No.3-M/s.A.D. Construction which was insured with the respondent No.5-New India Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in passing the award and making the parties jointly and severally liable without apportioning the amount of compensation to be recovered from either of the parties. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, it is open for the appellant to move an -3- C.M.A. No.1996/2010 application before the learned Tribunal drawing the attention of the learned Tribunal to the aforesaid fact that the amount is required to be apportioned between the two offending vehicles based upon the aforesaid findings. In case, such an application is filed, it is expected that the learned Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above, there is no force in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the above observations. The stay application also stands dismissed. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/