THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A No.3974 of 2003 Date:21.01.2011 Between: Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Nizamabad Rep by its Baranch Manger through Regional Office, Hydearbad rep.by its Asst.Manager. ……….. Appellant. And Hybath Chandrasekhar and another. ……. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A No.3974 of 2003 ORDER: The Insurance Company is the appellant. There is no dispute about the factum of accident, which took place on 5.9.1999 in which the claimant/the 1st respondent suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.AP 25 E 8040 by its driver. There is no dispute about the insurance coverage for the accident vehicle. There is no violation of any conditions of insurance policy. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nizamabad by award dated 10.10.2002 in O.P.No.847 of 1999. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- to the injured as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per medical record produced from District Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, the injured suffered fracture of pelvis apart from other three simple injuries. The Doctor-P.W.2 who issued Ex.C1-disability certificate certified that there is 40% partial permanent disability for the injured. According to P.W.2, there is mal-united fracture of pelvis with stiffness of both hip joints with painful and restricted movements. P.W.2 says that the petitioner cannot undertake hard work and cannot do tailoring work and cannot operate sewing machine. The injured/claimant claims himself to be a tailor. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the claimant did not examine the Doctor who treated him in the Government Headquarters Hospital and that evidence of P.W.2 is wholly irrelevant as he was not the Doctor who treated the injured. P.W.2 examined P.W1 on 20.1.2001. He says that he examined him both clinically and physically and issued the disability certificate Ex.C1. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that in Rajesh Kumar vs. Yudhvir Singh[1] of the Supreme Court, the Doctor who treated the injured has to be examined. But, ratio of the Supreme Court in Yudhvir Singh (1 supra) is to the effect that the Doctor who issued the disability certificate has to be examined and that in case the said Doctor is not examined, the disability certificate is inadmissible in evidence. In the case on hand, the claimant complied with the said pre- condition of examining the Doctor-P.W.2 who issued Ex.C1-disability certificate. Even though the Doctor certified percentage of disability as 40, the lower Tribunal found the same to be too generous and restricted the same at 25%. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.C1 are not entitled to weight. Examination of the Doctor who treated the injured, is not necessary for determining the disability as certified by P.W.2. As the matter now stands, age of the injured as on the date of accident was 26 years. The lower Tribunal took monthly income of the injured as Rs.3,000/-. But the lower Tribunal selected multiplier of 18. As per Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] of the Supreme Court, for the age of 26 years, the relevant multiplier is 17 and not 18. If compensation for the disability is calculated taking the multiplier as 17, it comes to Rs.1,53,000/-. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for the injury towards pain and suffering and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, transport and extra nourishment. Thus the total compensation amount comes to Rs.1,78,000/- which is just and proper. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed altering the compensation amount from Rs.1,87,000/- to Rs.1,78,000/-. No costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Date:21.01.2011 mrb [1] (2008) 7 SCC 305 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121