Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-Civil Misc. Appeals No. 625/1997 and 505/1998 have been submitted against the common award dated 11.06.1997 by the claimants, Dr. A.M. Jain and his wife Smt. Chanchal Jain seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in their respective Claim Applications No. 227/1993 and 226/1993 which were consolidated and decided together. Hence, these appeals have also been heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment . 2. The claimants were travelling on 18.01.1993 from Udaipur to Ahmedabad in bus bearing registration No. RJ-06-P-0131 owned by the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1. At about mid night, the bus upturned near village Bara-Pal on NH-8. Due to the accident, the claimants received several bodily injuries. .3. The claimants -appellants submitted separate claim applications narrating the facts relating to the accident and claiming compensation for the injuries and the loss suffered by them in the following manner:- .(a) Theclaimant Dr. A.M. Jain alleged that he received several injuries including fracture of left side second, third and fourth ribs and on that count, he could not walk properly and could not visit the outside patients and was carrying heaviness in the chest. He alleged that he was earning Rs. 5500/-per month and for a long time could not carry on with his work because of the injuries received by him and had to visit Ahmedabad for treatment and suffered a loss of income of Rs. 9,000/-. The claimant also alleged that because of the injuries he has suffered a loss of 20% of the future income and estimated this loss at Rs. 3,12,000/-. He also claimed Rs. 2,500/-for visiting Ahmedabad with his wife for treatment; Rs. 1,000/-spent on his treatment; and further Rs. 2,000/-likely to be incurred on treatment in future. The claimant also alleged that because of injuries on the forehead and the face, his face has taken an ugly look and he had to suffer serious physical and mental agony and claimed Rs. 25,000/-on this count. In all a sum of Rs. 3,51,500/-was claimed against the respondents. .(b) Sofar the other claimant Smt. Chanchal Jain is concerned, she made a claim of Rs. 1,59,000/-with the submissions that she received several injuries including a cut on ear where she received 15 stitches and other injuries on the head, hands etc. 25,000/-on this count. In all a sum of Rs. 3,51,500/-was claimed against the respondents. .(b) Sofar the other claimant Smt. Chanchal Jain is concerned, she made a claim of Rs. 1,59,000/-with the submissions that she received several injuries including a cut on ear where she received 15 stitches and other injuries on the head, hands etc. She alleged that earlier she used to carry out household work but after the injuries, she was required to employ a maid, to whom she was required to pay Rs. 500/-per month and because of injuries she was unable to stand having developed vertigo problem and would be required to employ the servant for next 20 years. On this count, she claimed Rs. 1,12,000/-. Apart from Rs. 3,000/-already paid to the maid, she also claimed Rs. 1,000/-spent on the treatment at Udaipur and Ahmedabad and Rs. 2,000/-for future treatment. The claimant also alleged that injury on the ear has resulted in disfiguration of face with permanent marks and she was required to suffer serious physical pain and mental agony and claimed Rs. 30,000/-on this count. 4. Leaving aside all unnecessary details, suffice is to point out that non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the bus did not file any reply to the claim applications and the non-applicant No. 3 insurer, contested the claim applications with the general allegations that the applicants were travelling unauthorisedly in the bus and that the bus owner violated the terms of the insurance policy and that bus driver was not having the valid driving licence. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues for determination of the questions involved in each of the cases and in the consolidated trial, the statements of AW-1 Dr. Arjunmal Jain and AW. 2 Smt. Chanchal Jain were recorded. No other oral evidence was produced by any party. The claimants produced certain documentary evidence which shall be referred hereinafter. The learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur found proved in issue No. 1 rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver, non-applicant No. 1 and receiving of the injuries by the claimants with reference to the evidence produced by them. Issue No. 3 relating to the objections of the Insurance Company was decided against it for want of evidence. 6. The Tribunal quantified compensation payable to each of the claimants as follows:- (a) In the case of Dr. Issue No. 3 relating to the objections of the Insurance Company was decided against it for want of evidence. 6. The Tribunal quantified compensation payable to each of the claimants as follows:- (a) In the case of Dr. A.M. Jain, it was found with reference to the injury report Exhibit 8 that he had received seven injuries of which only injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. By the MLC X-Ray Report Exhibit 9, it was held proved that he sustained fractures of second, third and fourth ribs on the left side and this injury was grievous in nature but the claims of permanent disablement, loss of earning capacity and disfiguration of face were not accepted. On the question of his income, it was found that the claimant was not paying income tax and his monthly income could not be assessed more than Rs. 4,000/-. The Tribunal accordingly awarded Rs. 8,000/-towards pecuniary loss. Rs. 3,000/-towards expenditure on treatment and Rs. 5,000/-towards mental and physical sufferings, and in all an award of Rs. 16,000/-was passed in favour of the claimant Dr. A.M. Jain. .(b) Inthe case of Smt. Chanchal Jain, the Tribunal was of opinion that from the medical report and certificates produced on record, it was proved that she received three grievous injuries but the claim of permanent disablement could not be accepted. The bills of medicines were produced on record for Rs. 1,043/-but adding other expenditures to it, an amount of Rs. 3,000/-was taken to be adequate as compensation for treatment. An amount of Rs. 5,000/-was further allowed for the maid and further Rs. 5,000/-for mental and physical sufferings and, therefore, an award of Rs. 13,000/-was passed in her favour. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently pressed the claim for enhancement of compensation with the submissions that the Tribunal was in error in discarding from consideration the relevant medical certificates which established clearly the nature and extend of injuries suffered by the two claimants; that the case of 20% reduction in earning capacity for the claimant Dr. A.M. Jain ought to have been allowed as there was no evidence to the contrary on record; that the Tribunal was in error in not considering that fractures of second, third and fourth ribs were extremely serious in nature and the award relating to this claimant remains grossly inadequate, who has further suffered disfiguration of his face. A.M. Jain ought to have been allowed as there was no evidence to the contrary on record; that the Tribunal was in error in not considering that fractures of second, third and fourth ribs were extremely serious in nature and the award relating to this claimant remains grossly inadequate, who has further suffered disfiguration of his face. Learned Counsel also pressed submissions regarding the other claimant Smt. Chanchal Jain that the Tribunal was in error in not awarding compensation towards permanent disfiguration of her face and further not awarding compensation for the permanent disability carried by her because of vertigo as certified by the doctors. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the certificates Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 16 issued by the Medical Jurist on 27.02.1993 in support of the claim for permanent disfiguration of the faces of respective claimants and vehemently contended that from the other certificate, produced on record as Exhibit 24, it is also established that claimant Smt. Chanchal Jain has developed vertigo problem because of the injuries suffered by her and, therefore, this permanent disablement ought to have been compensated. On a question being put to the learned Counsel about value and worth of these certificates without examination of the doctors in evidence, learned Counsel cited and placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India & Ors., 1989 ACJ 1000, and the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. T. Prabhakar & Ors., 2003 ACJ 1420 . These contentions were opposed with the submissions that the award granted by the Tribunal is itself on the higher side and in any case could not be said to be too low so as to warrant any interference by this Court in appeal. 8. The submissions made by the learned Counsel have been given thoughtful consideration and the records have been scanned through. 9. The decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Parmanand Katara (Supra), has got no application whatsoever to the question at hands. In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court was concerned with the aspects of medical ethics for the doctors and the requirement to attend the patient/injured first even if it be a medico-legal case. 9. The decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Parmanand Katara (Supra), has got no application whatsoever to the question at hands. In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court was concerned with the aspects of medical ethics for the doctors and the requirement to attend the patient/injured first even if it be a medico-legal case. The Honble Supreme Court was pleased to make it clear that unnecessarily a doctor ought not be called in evidence and not subjected to unnecessary harassment for recording his statement. 10. Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of T. Prabhakar (Supra), has considered the evidentary value of wound certificate issued by a doctor. The said decision cannot be read as authority for a sweeping proposition that all certificates issued by every medical officer are public documents and are conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 11. The certificate Exhibit 24 issued by Dr. A.K. Gupta, ENT Specialist and Professor and Head of ENT, RNT Medical College and General Hospital, Udaipur dated 14.07.1993 reads as under:-"Certified that Smt. Chanchal Jain W/o Dr. A.M. Jain has developed positional vertigo due to injuries No. 1 and 2 described by Medical Jurist in his report dated 27.01.1993." 12. The certificate aforesaid does not carry any value and worth on the questions involved in this case. The doctor concerned has not stated if he was the treating doctor of Smt. Chanchal Jain and not even that he has examined the claimant. The certificate does not even carry any dispatch or record number so as to treat it to be having even the traces of a public document. The value and worth of this kind of a certificate (Exhibit 24) cannot be more than remote opinion and as required of any opinion evidence, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the opinion could be acted upon as corroboration of the proof of a fact in issue. Such a certificate cannot be relied upon without the concerning doctor having been produced before the Court and having deposed to the satisfaction of the Court. The present one is not a case of requisites of medical ethics requiring of a doctor to attend the patient first and not to be worried about the Court attendances by him. Such a certificate cannot be relied upon without the concerning doctor having been produced before the Court and having deposed to the satisfaction of the Court. The present one is not a case of requisites of medical ethics requiring of a doctor to attend the patient first and not to be worried about the Court attendances by him. It is also not the case of a wound certificate/injury report issued by a doctor in due discharge of his regular duties. The certificate Exhibit 24 has been issued by an ENT Specialist certifying development of positional vertigo because of injuries suffered by the claimant six months ago. The learned doctor has not even shown that she was under his treatment or even that he has clinically examined her. The Tribunal has rightly discarded such certificate for it having no probative value and the doctor issuing certificate having not been produced in evidence. No reason has been assigned for not producing the concerned doctor in evidence. It cannot be believed that the claimant developed vertigo because of these injuries and the claim on this count has rightly been rejected. 13. The so-called certificates Exhibit 10 for the claimant Dr. A.M. Jain and Exhibit 16 for the claimant Smt. Chanchal Jain have been pressed for the respective claims for disfiguration. In Exhibit 10 it has been stated that there was keloid formation resulting in disfiguration. In Exhibit 16 the ear has been stated to have elevated resulting in disfiguration. These opinions have allegedly been issued by the medical jurist but both these certificates do not inspire confidence nor could be relied upon in proof of the facts of disfiguration because,- .(i) Both these documents are not the certified copies and it seems doubtful that they formed the part of official record. (Other injury report Exhibits 8,9 and 15 are certified copies from the Court record); .(ii) Both these documents are dated 27.03.1993, i.e., more than a month after the accident and have been issued on re-examination. The medical jurist has not shown as to who referred the claimants for this re-examination? (iii) Both these documents do not carry any dispatch or record number, .(iv) These certificates cannot be put at the level ofan MLC report issued by the doctor in due discharge of his regular duties; (v) Significantly, the claimant Dr. The medical jurist has not shown as to who referred the claimants for this re-examination? (iii) Both these documents do not carry any dispatch or record number, .(iv) These certificates cannot be put at the level ofan MLC report issued by the doctor in due discharge of his regular duties; (v) Significantly, the claimant Dr. A.M. Jain is himself a doctor but has failed to state clearly in his oral evidence that there was keloid formation of such nature that it has resulted in permanent disfiguration of his face, except making a cursory statement that there were permanent marks on the face. And, so far the other claimant is concerned, she has not stated a single word in her testimony that she has suffered permanent disfiguration; .(vi) The doctor concerned has not been examined in evidence nor there is any material on record to show that the concerned doctor was not available for evidence. .14. So far the claimant-Dr. A.M. Jain in Appeal No. 625/1997 is concerned, the Tribunal has not committed any error nor the award could be said to be inadequate so as to call for any interference and enhancement. The claimant was a private practicing doctor and admittedly not an income tax assessee. No proof of income was produced. The Tribunal has still taken his income to be Rs. 4,000/-per month which is clearly an estimation on the higher side in favour of the claimant. With the kind of injuries shown particularly of the fracture of three true ribs, loss of income for two complete months has been compensated by awarding Rs. 8,000/-. The fracture of three ribs definitely amounts to a grievous injury but the fracture has been shown at lateral end of the ribs. Neither the extent of fracture has been shown nor there is anything convincing available on record to believe that this injury has resulted in permanently reducing the earning capacity. Noteworthy it is that the claimant suffered injuries in the midnight of 18/19.01.1993, he travelled to Udaipur in a truck and thereafter, immediately has gone to Ahmedabad on 19.01.1993 itself as is evidenced by the travelling bill Exhibit 14. First examination of the injuries seems to have been carried out at Ahmedabad only but no such examination reports and X-ray reports of Ahmedabad have been produced on record. First examination of the injuries seems to have been carried out at Ahmedabad only but no such examination reports and X-ray reports of Ahmedabad have been produced on record. Examination of the injuries at Udaipur for MLC purposes has been carried out only on 27.01.1993 (vide Exhibit 8). In the overall circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in not believing the injuries in the accident to be of the character of permanent disability or reducing the earning capacity. The claim of 20% loss of earning capacity seems to be totally .preposterous and has rightly been disallowed. The claimant has alleged to have spent Rs. 3,000/- on treatment and the entire amount of the claim on this count has been allowed. A further reasonable compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and sufferings has been granted and there appears to be no justification whatsoever for making any enhancement in respect of the claimant in Appeal No. 625/1997. 15. So far the other claimant - Smt. Chanchal Jain in Appeal No. 505/1998 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded entire amount for the treatment expenditure of Rs. 3,000/-as claimed. The claimant has made a claim of Rs. 30,000/- on the count of disfiguration coupled with the claim for pain and sufferings, towards which, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,000/-, which in the overall facts and circumstances of the case appear to be reasonable. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by both the husband and the wife, it seems that the Tribunal has taken a practical view of the matter and has allowed Rs. 5,000/- towards extra expenditure for the maid/attendant, although her receipts Exhibits 25 to 42 do not inspire much confidence. At the first instance it appears that the Tribunal has not considered the injury No. 1 suffered by this claimant in which she received a through and through cut 5 c.m. long on her left ear for which the Medical Jurist in his report Exhibit 16 after examination of the ear of the claimant opined that "left ear is elevated and disfigured. This is a permanent disfigurement of left ear." However, a close scrutiny of evidence produced on record reveals that this injury received by the claimant cannot be believed to be resulting in permanent disfiguration of left ear and resultant disfiguration of the face. This is a permanent disfigurement of left ear." However, a close scrutiny of evidence produced on record reveals that this injury received by the claimant cannot be believed to be resulting in permanent disfiguration of left ear and resultant disfiguration of the face. As pointed out hereinabove, the certificate Exhibit 16 cannot be relied upon for want of testimony of the concerning doctor and she herself has not made even a remote whisper in her statement about disfiguration. So far the claim for developing vertigo is concerned, as noticed above, the certificate Exhibit 24 again cannot be accepted as a proof of the alleged problem and no other evidence is available on record to return a finding in favour of the claimant. The award in respect of this claimant also calls for no enhancement. .16. After a thorough consideration of the entire record, no case for enhancement of compensation for either of the claimants is made out and the award passed by the Tribunal calls for no interference. .17. No other point survives for consideration. 18. As a result of the aforesaid, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.