1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.886/2001. Mohd.Sharif. VS Paras Ram and Others. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.886/2001. Mohd.Sharif. VERSUS Paras Ram and Others. 10.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.K.N.Tiwari, for the appellant. Mr.T.P.Sharma, for the respondent No.3. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 18.04.2001. The appellant Mohd.Sharif filed a cliam before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him while driving the vehicle RJ-14-7136, the jeep, which met with an accident with a tanker bearing registration No.DL-1/G-3978 on 31.08.1991. The appellant suffered injuries as mentioned in Exhibit P-5, the injury report. The appellant produced before the learned Tribunal the certificate issued by the Medical Board showing the disability of 8% in the left upper arm and 5% disability on account of the injury on the chin. The learned Tribunal has awarded in all an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the aforesaid injuries and in respect of the loss of earning to the appellant as held in para 10 of the award. 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.886/2001. Mohd.Sharif. VS Paras Ram and Others. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the disability certificate of 8% disability and has also not taken into account the income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month and, therefore, based upon the income of Rs.1,500/- per month and taking into account the 8% disability, the amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been awarded is inadequate. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 on the other hand contended that the income of the appellant has not been proved as Rs.1,500/- per month. He has drawn the attention of the court to the finding of the learned Tribunal wherein the learned Tribunal relying upon the statement of the employer AW-3 Ravikant has held that the employer has not stated that the income of the appellant was Rs.1,500/- per month and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not accepted the aforesaid contention of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has further drawn the attention of the court to the finding that so far as the disability certificate is concerned, the learned Tribunal has held that the Doctor who issue the same nor any member of the Medical Board has been examined by the appellant for proving the same and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the record. 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.886/2001. Mohd.Sharif. VS Paras Ram and Others. While it is true that the learned Tribunal has not held in favour of the appellant that the income of the appellant was Rs.1,500/- at the time of accident, I am in agreement that the appellant ought to have produced the treating Doctor or any member or the Medical Board who issued the disability certificate for the purpose of proving the same. So far as the disability certificate is concerned, it sometimes become very difficult for the claimants to obtain the presence of the Doctor before the Tribunal and sometimes the Doctors of the Government Hospitals who have issued the disability certificate stand transferred to various places and in all such cases, it is not possible for the claimant to obtain their presence before the learned Tribunal. Since the medical certificate has been issued by the Board constituted by the S.M.S.Hospital, Jaipur there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The question still remains as to whether the Court or Tribunal should accept the medical certificate as it is or take into consideration the totality of circumstances including the evidence in the form of the certificate while determining the amount of compensation. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the injury suffered by the appellant is a fracture of upper left arm. The appellant was a Driver and the disability of 8% on account of the aforesaid injury is insignificant so far as the nature of employment of the appellant is concerned and the amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been awarded for the aforesaid purpose cannot be said to be inadequate. 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.886/2001. Mohd.Sharif. VS Paras Ram and Others. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal more particularly when an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded on account of cut on the chin and the total amount awarded for aforesaid two injuries suffered by the appellant is Rs.25,000/-. The amount, therefore, cannot be said to be inadequate. In the facts and circumstances, the amount appears to be “just compensation”. Consequently, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.