B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS L. P. A. is filed against the award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy in O. P. No. 679 of 1989 dated 30. 5. 1991 as confirmed by the learned single Judge of this court in c. M. A. No. 1724 of 1991 dated 2. 8. 1999. ( 2 ) THE appellant before us is a practising Orthopaedic Surgeon. After staying for about seven years in Gulf country, he came back to India and started working as a consultant in Apollo Hospital and in Sri padmavathi Orthopaedic and Surgical Clinic. On the fateful day, i. e. , on 16. 6. 1989 at about 3. 30 p. m. when the appellant was returning home on his scooter, lorry bearing No. ATS 7373 came from behind him and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, appellant was dragged by the lorry to a certain distance and he sustained not only multiple bruises and contusions, but also sustained hairline fracture to his pubis bone. With the result, he was hospitalized for about three months and after coming back to home, he was compelled to take rest for another three months and thereafter he started working from January, 1990. He lodged the claim petition for about Rs. 2,00,000 under different heads, as under: (i) Loss of earnings Rs. 36,000 (ii) Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000 (iii) Damage to clothes and scooter Rs. 3,000 (iv) Attendant charges Rs. 3,000 (v) Medical expenditure Rs. 11,000 (vi) For pain and suffering and for loss of pleasure and amenities of life Rs. 15,000 (vii) Compensation for the continuing permanent disability Rs. 1,27,000 as against the above claim, the Tribunal awarded following amounts: (i) Loss of earnings Rs. 10,000 (ii) Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500 (iii) Damage to clothes and scooter Rs. 200 (iv) Attendant charges Rs. 2,000 (v) Medical expenditure Rs. 11,000 (vi) For pain and suffering and for loss of pleasure and amenities of life Rs. 10,000 the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for permanent disability by holding "i fail to understand how they are going to cause any permanent disability, more so to the right elbow". Thus, the Tribunal in all awarded a compensation of rs. 34,700 and also granted interest on the said amount from the date of the petition. 10,000 the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for permanent disability by holding "i fail to understand how they are going to cause any permanent disability, more so to the right elbow". Thus, the Tribunal in all awarded a compensation of rs. 34,700 and also granted interest on the said amount from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimant preferred an appeal before this court in C. M. A. No. 1724 of 1991. The learned single Judge of this court confirmed the award of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) WE have no hesitation to hold that both the courts below gravely erred in assessing the loss of earnings to a practising orthopaedist, more so who worked for seven years in Gulf country and returned to india and started practising as a consultant in two reputed hospitals. It is a common knowledge that doctors will be earning much more than what will be reflected in the income tax returns. The appellant has categorically admitted that he is an income tax assessee, but failed to file the returns. However, he has filed the certificate Exh. A-11 issued by the Chartered Accountant. Likewise he has also produced certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, Exh. A-12, which is a premier hospital in twin cities. He also filed Exh. A-13, certificate issued by Sri Padmavathi Orthopaedic and Surgical Clinic. These three certificates, i. e. , exhs. A-11 to A-13, conclusively establish that he is working as a consultant in two reputed hospitals. Absolutely neither the tribunal, nor the single Judge of this court gave any reasons for discarding the above documents, more so when no evidence was produced by the insurance company, controverting these facts. As long as the statement of the witnesses is not disturbed in the cross-examination, there is no reason why that should be disbelieved. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner towards loss of earnings at rs. 36,000 is moderate and there is no possibility to reduce the same. Hence, the claims Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs. 2,500 per month, that too only for four months, when the witness says that he was bedridden for about six months, i. e. , from June to December, 1989, remained unrebutted. Since the appellant claimed only Rs. 36,000 is moderate and there is no possibility to reduce the same. Hence, the claims Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs. 2,500 per month, that too only for four months, when the witness says that he was bedridden for about six months, i. e. , from June to December, 1989, remained unrebutted. Since the appellant claimed only Rs. 36,000 towards loss of earnings, we are inclined to allow his claim for the said amount. ( 4 ) COMING to the permanent disability, it is not in dispute that the doctor PW 2 who examined the claimant issued the certificate Exh. A-4, certifying that the appellant sustained 70 per cent disability. In his evidence, it is stated as follows: I assessed disability to the left heel as 40 per cent. I assessed partial restriction of hip movement as 15 per cent. I assessed the disability of the right elbow as 15 per cent. Thus the total disability is assessed at 70 per cent. ( 5 ) BUT from the order of the Tribunal it is evident that it failed to take into consideration the major injuries, but only considered the bruises and contusions that were found on the body. There is absolutely no discussion about the injuries to the pubis bone, which resulted in partial disability. In the cross-examination also no attempt was made by the insurance company to disprove the said disability. As already observed above, the Tribunal did not award any compensation under this head by observing "i failed to understand how they are going to cause any permanent disability, more so to the right elbow". This observation is totally improper. The disability caused to the body need not come in the way of discharging normal functions. The disability means the structural changes brought in the body due to a major accident, which are permanent and which are likely to interfere with day-to-day activity or which may disfigure the personality of the individual. Admittedly, as per the certificate issued by PW 2, the disability assessed is at 70 per cent. Hence, in our considered opinion, both the courts below gravely erred in not awarding any compensation towards continuing permanent disability. Hence, we are inclined to award rs. 50,000 under this head. Admittedly, as per the certificate issued by PW 2, the disability assessed is at 70 per cent. Hence, in our considered opinion, both the courts below gravely erred in not awarding any compensation towards continuing permanent disability. Hence, we are inclined to award rs. 50,000 under this head. ( 6 ) THOUGH some of the amounts awarded under various heads are low, we are not inclined to interfere with them, in view of the enhancement of loss of earnings to rs. 36,000 from Rs. 10,000 and also in view of awarding Rs. 50,000 for continuing permanent disability. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under: the amount granted under loss of earnings at Rs. 10,000 is now enhanced to rs. 36,000 and a further amount of rs. 50,000 is awarded under the head of continuing permanent disability . The amount now awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. Any amount paid, shall be given credit while making payment. Regarding all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, is upheld. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the L. P. A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. L. P. A. partly allowed.