Prabir Kumar Samanta, Aniruddha Bose ( 1 ) THIS Misc. Appeal is by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated 21. 9. 1996/24. 9. 1996 passed in M. A. C. Case No. 153 of 1992 by the Court of M. A. C. C. Tribunal, South 24-Parganas, Alipore. ( 2 ) THE above claim case was filed under Section 110a of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. The Claimant-appellant's case in brief may be described as under:"on 30. 8. 1987 at about 4-30 P. M. one private bus, bearing No. WBR 2069 was proceeding along B. T. Road from South to North. While it reached in front of Premises No. 16, B. T. Road, it knocked down the victim a minor boy. As a result the victim sustained severe injuries and was removed to R. G. Kar Hospital, where he was admitted. Thereafter, he was taken to Dream land Nurshing Home. It was alleged that rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, was the sole case of the accident. The victim was only a child of 3 years of age and both of his legs were fractured. The victim boy was thus became handicapped and is not likely to earn his living in future. " ( 3 ) THE respondent-Insurance Company contested the case by denying all the material allegations made in the above claim petition. The insurance cover of the offending vehicle was not under dispute. ( 4 ) UPON contested hearing it was proved in evidence that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner for which the accident offered. Suffering of the injury by the victim boy in the said accident was also proved by cogent evidence before the Claims Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the medical certificate issued by one Dr. Parbat certifying that the victim boy suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% did not inspire confidence. In the opinion of the learned Tribunal the said Doctor being not an expert in Orthopaedics and further having issued the said medical certificate on the basis of his clinical findings could not have been relied upon. Unfortunately, the learned Claims Tribunal went to the extent of observing that said Dr. Parbat was not even a medical graduate. In the opinion of the learned Tribunal the said Doctor being not an expert in Orthopaedics and further having issued the said medical certificate on the basis of his clinical findings could not have been relied upon. Unfortunately, the learned Claims Tribunal went to the extent of observing that said Dr. Parbat was not even a medical graduate. ( 6 ) WE are not in a position to uphold such findings of the learned claims Tribunal. Before the Claims Tribunal it was satisfactorily proved in evidence that the victim boy suffered injury in the said accident caused by the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal overlooked the material documents produced in support of the treatment received by the victim for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident namely the prescriptions of the Doctor, the bills of the Nurshing Home where the victim boy was admitted soon after the accident, the medical vouchers and the consent form for the surgical operation performed on the victim boy. The learned Claims Tribunal in his judgment did not at all discuss about the said materials on record, the medical certificate as issued by Dr. Parbat was not the lone material evidence to arrive at a conclusion of the injury suffered by the victim. The accident occurred on 30. 8. 1987. Dr. Parbat issued the said certificate describing the victim boy as 20% permanently disabled on 18. 12. 1988. It further appeared from the materials on record that the victim boy was examined by a specialist doctor even after four years from the date of accident for his post traumatic contracture on right leg. All these materials along with the medical certificate issued by said Dr. Parbat, if scrutinised, ought to have enabled the Court to come to a conclusion that the same was founded absolutely on mere guess work. Dr. Parbat is qualified as L. M. F. , L. P. H. Judicial notice cquld be taken of the fact that before introduction of M. B. B. S. Degree in Medical Science, such degrees of L. M. F. were used to be conferred by the Medical Colleges and/or Universities of this State. Experience also shows that Doctors of yester years with such degrees were no less competent than M. B. B. S. degree holders. Experience also shows that Doctors of yester years with such degrees were no less competent than M. B. B. S. degree holders. We therefore upon consideration of all the documents as discussed above in relation to the admission of victim in a Nurshing Home soon after the accident, surgical operation done on him and the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the injured victim, of the view that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Parbat certifying the permanent disability of the victim as 20% cannot be brushed aside. There being no other material to establish and/or to infar that the injury suffered by the victim was of an insignificant nature without causing any permanent disability whatsoever on his person, we are inclined to accept the said certify of Dr. Parbat. Accordingly, we are of the view that the claimant-appellant is entitled to compensation on the basis of the injury suffered by the victim boy as above. The judgment and order of dismissal of the claim petition is therefore set aside. ( 7 ) EVIDENTLY, the victim boy was aged about three years on the death of the accident. We have already held that in the decision reported in (2004)3 tag 756 (Cal) Smt. Suniti Mondal v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , for the purpose of computation of compensation either in the case of death or injury of a minor, notional income of Rs. 15,000/- and on such notional income a multiplier of 15 should be applied as by way of minimum standard. Upon such application the amount of compensation as per 20% permanent disability suffered by the victim would be payable at Rs. 45,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- x 15 = Rs. 2,25,000/- : 20% of 2,25,000 = Rs. 45,000/-), we are further inclined to grant a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation on both the heads of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the victim boy and the pain and agony suffered by him as the insurer-respondent would be under no liability to make payment of a compensation more than Rs. 50,000/- in case of a third party insurance cover of the offending vehicle as per the provisions of the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We, therefore, determine the total compensation payable to the claimant-appellant at Rs. 50,000/- less amount of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a third party insurance cover of the offending vehicle as per the provisions of the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We, therefore, determine the total compensation payable to the claimant-appellant at Rs. 50,000/- less amount of Rs. 7,500/- already paid to the claimant-appellant, which shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment which shall be peremptorily made within a period of four weeks from this date. Such payment may be made by issuing an Account Payee Cheque in favour of the claimant-appellant and depositing the same with the learned Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal upon receipt of the same will immediately hand over the same either to the claimant or to the victim boy upon proper identification and receipt. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed.