ORDER 1. This is claimants appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 79/05 vide award dated 8.2.2005. 2. Plaintiff claims to be a hawker moving around in cycle selling groundnut and thereby earning Rs.200/- per day he is aged 30 years and it is submitted that on 3.9.2004 in the night at about 8:30 p.m., when he was going on his cycle towards Malanpur and when reached at place near A one Factory in Malanpur a bus belonging to MPSRTC, bearing M.P. 07 F 813 driven by respondent No.1 dashed against the cycle of the appellant from the back side as a result of the accident appellant suffered injuries on the fibula bone of his left leg, he sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body, initially he was admitted to Gohad Hospital but as his proper treatment could not be given there, after giving first aid he was referred to J .A. Group of Hospital, Gwalior and thereafter was treated in private nursing home where finally he was treated by one Dr. Prabhat Kaushal, his left leg was operated fractured bone was settled and he was plastered. Inter alia claiming compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- claim petition was filed. It was the case of the appellant that of the accident he has suffered permanent disability to the tune of 50% which is proved by medical certificate Ex. P-13 issued by the District Medical Board. Against the aforesaid claim made by the claimant learned Tribunal having found no permanent disability to be established granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/- which included the amount spent for medical treatment a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards loss of salary, Rs. 1,000/- towards transport expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for special diet, accordingly compensation of Rs. 29,500/- has been granted. Taking me through the statement of PW 2 Dr. Tripathi Chairman of the District Medical Board who has issued disability certificate Ex. P-13 and referring to the finding recorded Shri Arun Sharma argued that once it is established from the certificate of the Medical Board that permanent disability has resulted, the learned Tribunal committed grave error in rejecting the claim for permanent disability. Tripathi Chairman of the District Medical Board who has issued disability certificate Ex. P-13 and referring to the finding recorded Shri Arun Sharma argued that once it is established from the certificate of the Medical Board that permanent disability has resulted, the learned Tribunal committed grave error in rejecting the claim for permanent disability. Placing reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar v. Tazuddin and others [2004 (1) JLJ 298] argued that once it is proved that as result of fracture the union of the bone is not settled then it is the case of permanent disability as held by Full Bench of this Court and, therefore, Shri Arun Sharma argued that in refusing to assess the compensation on the basis of 50% disability suffered as per Ex. P-13, learned Court has committed grave error. Placing reliance on another judgment passed in the case of Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. T. Prabhakar and others [ 2003 ACJ 1420 ], it was submitted that Medical Certificate issued is a public document and, therefore, the disability certificate should have been exhibited. 3. Shri Amit Bansal, counsel for the respondents refuting the aforesaid and submitted that the compensation awarded is reasonable as the Dr. Tripathi is not examined and medical certificate of disability Ex. P-13 is not proved in accordance with law, no case for interference is made out. It is also seen from the records respondents filed cross objection being I.A. No. 10306/06 it was taken on record on 23.8.2006, however Shri Arun Sharma submits that as the condition necessary with regard to pre-deposit of the amount is not complied with by the respondents, cross objection cannot be accepted, and prays for dismissal of cross objection in view of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhilasha Bai v. Arvind Kumar and others [2002 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 6 = 2003 ACJ 49 ]. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. Before considering the question of enhancement claimed by the appellant it would be appropriate to consider the question of maintainability of the cross objection. Admittedly when the cross objection was filed no amount as required under section 173 Motor Vehicles Act has been deposited on 29.7.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. Before considering the question of enhancement claimed by the appellant it would be appropriate to consider the question of maintainability of the cross objection. Admittedly when the cross objection was filed no amount as required under section 173 Motor Vehicles Act has been deposited on 29.7.2006. Shri Bansal took time to comply with the provision of section 173 Motor Vehicles Act but till date there is nothing available on record to show that pre-deposit as per provision of section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been made, a Division Bench of this Court has laid down the principle that a cross objection filed without deposit of the mandatory amount as contemplated in the provision of section 173 is not maintainable and the cross objection is liable to the dismissed under such circumstances, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Abhilash Bai (supra) and taking note of the fact that the respondents have not deposited the mandatory amount as per provision of section 173 Motor Vehicles Act cross objection filed is not maintainable, accordingly the cross objection filed being I.A. No. 10306/ 06 is dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Next question would be with regard to entitlement of the appellant to seek enhancement of compensation on the ground of permanent disability suffered to the extent of 50% as indicated in the Medical Certificate issued by the District Medical Board. From the records it is seen that appellant was treated initially in the Government Hospital Gohad thereafter, in the J.A. Group of Hospital and finally he was operated upon by Dr. Prabhat Kaushal's, private nursing home, however none of the doctor including Dr. Prabhat Kaushal are examined to prove the injuries sustained and treatment given to the appellant the Dr. Tripathi was examined who is chairman of the District Medical Board and he only submits that as the joints are not united, he has assessed 50% permanent disability. Dr. Tripathi admits that permanent disability is not assessed as per second schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act and he does not speak about disability. Tripathi was examined who is chairman of the District Medical Board and he only submits that as the joints are not united, he has assessed 50% permanent disability. Dr. Tripathi admits that permanent disability is not assessed as per second schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act and he does not speak about disability. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Jain (supra) has considered the question as to whether fracture of the bone in the motor accident can be called permanent disability under section 142, after considering the legal principle in para 10 of the aforesaid judgment of Full Bench has observed as under: "(I) Thus the Legislature's intent is clear and Court should determine percentage of loss of earning capacity from the nature of injuries mentioned in the Schedule. Even otherwise, doctor's statement determining the loss of disability should be based upon scientific test. If no scientific tests are conducted, then the Court may safely record the percentage of disability from Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. percentage of loss determined in the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act will be sufficient to determine the nature of disability and amount of compensation can be calculated by applying the multiplier mentioned in the schedule under section 163-A of the Act. It may be mentioned that mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, unless the doctor has examined the claimant and assessed the percentage of disability after performing scientific tests. Without performing scientific tests bald statement of the doctor and certificate is inadmissible in evidence. Visual opinion of doctor has no evidential value. Claims Tribunals, therefore, must assign reasons in arriving at the conclusion about the percentage of loss of income in the case of permanent partial disablement. Therefore, for determining the nature of permanent disability, there must be sufficient evidence on record to determine total or partial disablement. Visual opinion of doctor has no evidential value. Claims Tribunals, therefore, must assign reasons in arriving at the conclusion about the percentage of loss of income in the case of permanent partial disablement. Therefore, for determining the nature of permanent disability, there must be sufficient evidence on record to determine total or partial disablement. In the absence of evidence regarding scienific tests to determine the percentage of disability, Claims Tribunals should take guidance from the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act to determine the percentage of loss and shall apply multiplier on the basis of loss of income of the injured." (Emphasis supplied) It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court that for assessing permanent disability, the Doctor's statement supported by any scientific basis or existence of disability as per Workmen's Compensation Act is necessary, in the absence of any scientific test being conducted by the doctor permanent disability cannot be assessed. In the present case the injuries are not the ones specified in the Workmen's Compensation Act and doctor concerned PW 2 does not say anything about scientific test conducted for assessing the permanent disability under such circumstances, I find no error in the order passed by Tribunal regarding the disability certificate Ex. P-13 and holding that no permanent disability is proved. Accordingly prayer for enhancement on the ground of appellant having sustained permanent disability is rejected. 6. As far as grant of compensation for medical expenses is concerned total bills available on record consisting of Ex. P-9 to P-12 and P-15 to P-17 is for Rs. 1,791/- and considering these total Rs. 2,500/- is awarded by the Tribunal for treatment. Even though permanent disability is not proved the injury suffered is serious in nature and due to the injuries appellant has suffered loss in income at least three months. Considering the same compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is some what on the lower side, accordingly the same is increased to Rs. 40,000/-. Accordingly for the injuries suffered and the treatment undergone a sum of Rs. 4,000/- is awarded as compensation, as the appellant is found .0 have suffered serious injuries he would have been out of work for at lest three months on that count he is entitled to salary which works out to Rs. 4,500/- (i.e. 1500x3). 7. Accordingly the total compensation would now come to Rs. 4,000/- is awarded as compensation, as the appellant is found .0 have suffered serious injuries he would have been out of work for at lest three months on that count he is entitled to salary which works out to Rs. 4,500/- (i.e. 1500x3). 7. Accordingly the total compensation would now come to Rs. 48,500/-, appeal stands allowed in part amount of compensation awarded is enhanced from Rs. 29,500/- to Rs. 48,500/-, enhanced amount shall be paid by the respondent insurance company along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till payment. 8. Accordingly appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid, without any order so as to cost.