1. Hoard Mr. M. Guite, learned counsel for the appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and also heard Mr. S. N. Meitei, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. Being highly aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award dated 26.6.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 13 of 2006, a challenge has been made regarding its legality and correctness by the appellant herein under the provisions of section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 3. The brief facts involved in this appeal are that, respondent No. 1 herein as claimant filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation from the appellant and respondent No. 2 herein, on account of sustention of injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on 26.7.1999. It is inter-alia contended in the claim petition that, on 26.7.1999 while the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein alongwith other passengers were traveling in a TATA Sumo bearing registration No. MZ-02/2310 from Lunglei to Aizawl, the vehicle met with an accident at Tuikhurhlu village near Tuirial Airfield by rolling down to the gorge resulting serious injuries to her person. She was taken to Civil Hospital, Aizawl. She suffered 80% permanent disablement as a result of such injuries. The claimant-respondent No. 1 herein, therefore, claimed compensation from the appellant and the respondent No. 2. 4. On filing of the claim petition, the appellant herein being arrayed as opposite party No. 2 contested the claim on several grounds including the income of the claimant and percentage of disability suffered by her. The learned tribunal, after making due enquiry awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,30,000 with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization of the opposite party No. 2. 5. In the instant appeal, two pertinent issues have been raised by the appellant. (i) A disability certificate proved and marked as Exhibit-4 cannot be accepted in view of the non-examination of the Doctor/Doctors who issued the same. (ii) That default liability required to be prove under the claim petition preferred under section 166 of the Act has not been discharged by the respondent No. 1. Mr. (i) A disability certificate proved and marked as Exhibit-4 cannot be accepted in view of the non-examination of the Doctor/Doctors who issued the same. (ii) That default liability required to be prove under the claim petition preferred under section 166 of the Act has not been discharged by the respondent No. 1. Mr. M. Quite, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in view of the failure on the part of the respondent-opposite party No. 1 to prove as such, prays this court to set aside and quash the judgment and award rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl. Mr. M. Quite, in support of his contention relied on a decision in. the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Chandreswar Thakur and Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 393, wherein in Para 2 of the judgment, their Lordships held as under: - "2. The whole contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the claimant suffered permanent disability without examining the Doctor. Since the claimant sustained injury, it was incumbent on the part of the claimant to have examined the Doctor and establish its case as to what percentage of permanent disabilities was suffered by the claimant. It would clearly appear that besides submitting a certificate from the Doctor, no doctor who has treated the claimant have been examined by the claimant. Non-examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant deny the opportunity to the Insurance Company to cross-examine the Doctor. In our jurisprudence witnesses put up by ether of the parties is subject to cross-examination so as to test veracity or the truthness or correctness of the statement of the witnesses. In the instant case, no Doctor has been examined to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant and in that view the permanent disability has not been proved. Apart from that the Tribunal saddled the liability with the Insurance Company on the compensation assessed on the basis of permanent disability suffered by the claimant, without giving any opportunity of cross-examining the Doctor." 6. Taking aid of the case law, Mr. M. Quite submits that the appellant, while contesting the claim by filing written statement denied the percentage of disability as claimed by the claimant-respondent No. 1. Taking aid of the case law, Mr. M. Quite submits that the appellant, while contesting the claim by filing written statement denied the percentage of disability as claimed by the claimant-respondent No. 1. That apart, during enquiry while the respondent No. 1 was in the witness box and cross-examined, the document so proved in support of. the claim were suggested to be false and fabricated. Even in spite of such claim, no good sense prevailed on the part of the claimant-respondent No. 1 to bring the Doctor/Doctors into the witness box for proof of the document in respect of percentage of disability. Non-examination of the Doctor/Doctors by the claimant-respondent No. 1 prejudiced the appellant in bringing out the truth in regard to the extent of disability suffered by the claimant-respondent No. 1. In other words, when the Doctor/Doctors were not made subject to crossexamination so as to test veracity or the truthfulness or correctness of the statement made by issuing a certificate, it would be in the fitness of things to remand the case to the learned tribunal for a fresh decision with a direction to examine the Doctor/Doctors in respect of extent of disability. 7. Per contra to the submission advanced by Mr. M. Guite, Mr. S. N, Meitei, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned judgment and award are not liable to be set aside and quashed on the sole ground as contended by the appellant. Mr. S. N. Meitei, while supporting the case of the claimant submitted that once a document is admitted in evidence before a trial court or in an enquiry, the genuineness/acceptability of the same cannot be questioned in appeal. The Exhibit-4, disability certificate, which was issued by a Medical Board in the context of extent of permanent disability of the claimant before the tribunal, the same was not objected by the appellant at any stage of the examination of the claimant. Mere suggestion that the documents are fabricated would be not enough for rejection of a document. Mr. S.N. Meitei, in support of his contention relied on a decision in the case between Hamida Khatun and Ors. v. Loobha Tea Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2004 (1) GLT382. In Para 41 of the judgment, their lordships of the hon'ble High Court held as under:- "41. Mr. S.N. Meitei, in support of his contention relied on a decision in the case between Hamida Khatun and Ors. v. Loobha Tea Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2004 (1) GLT382. In Para 41 of the judgment, their lordships of the hon'ble High Court held as under:- "41. It is true that in the case in hand, the claimant did not examine the doctor in support of the injuries and the documents relating thereto. But the fact remains that these documents were introduced in evidence by the claimant without any objection of the respondent owner who in spite of notice of the proceedings did not contest the same. We have examined the documents proved and exhibited in the case from which it appears that the claimant had suffered fractured in the upper shaft of femur on the right side and in the upper mid and lower shaft of the femur for the treatment of which he had to remain in the Silchar Medical College hospital for a period of one month. He had to be admitted in the hospital for follow up treatments and the certificate issued by the Associate Professor of Orthopaedics, Silchar Medical College Hospital, Silchar indicates that he had suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 60%. The prescriptions and cash memos also support the fact that the claimant injured had expended a sizeable amount toward the medical treatment. From the injuries sustained by the claimant injured, it can be reasonably concluded that he would suffer loss in earning and would be faced with the same predicament in the future as well because of the sustained effect of the injuries suffered by him. His prospect of earning has definitely lessened substantially. In the above premises, we are inclined to enhance the principal amount of compensation awarded by Rs. 50,000. As the learned Tribunal has been conferred with the power to follow its own procedure in dealing with such claims and keeping in mind that the Act is a piece of social legislation, we are not inclined to uphold the contentions of the respondent owner that only because the claimant injured had not examined the doctor it is not open for the claimants, on the basis of the materials on record to urge, that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is in adequate and needs to be suitably enhanced". 8. Further Mr. 8. Further Mr. S.N. Meitei, in support of his contention relied on a decision R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.R Temple andAnr, 2004 (2) SBR 365. In Para 17 of the judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:- "17. Order 13 rule 4 of the CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not Emitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the court to the person from whose custody it was produced". 9. Mr. S. N. Meitei, therefore, relying in a case law as enunciated by the hon'ble Apex Court and the hon'ble High Court submits that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board proved and marked as Exhibit-4 cannot be questioned at the appellate stage. Since the admissibility of the said document was not challenged before the learned tribunal, the appellant is now precluded from challenging the question of admissibility of the document at this stage. Mr. S. N. Meitei, therefore, submits that the judgment and award rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl are not liable to be interfered with. 10. From the rival contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, it has become apparent that the claimant did not examine the Doctor/Doctors who issued the Exhibit-4 in support of the extent of permanent disability. But facts remain that this particular document, Exhibit-4 and some other documents were introduced in evidence by the claimant without any objection of the appellant. The case between Hamida Khatun (supra) was decided by a Division Bench of this High Court on 24.2.2004, while the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandreswar Thakur and Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 393 was decided on 28.2.2001 by a Division Bench of this High Court. It is not brought to the notice of this court that the law laid down in the case 2001 (1) GLT 393 has been over-ruled by a larger bench. Ltd. v. Chandreswar Thakur and Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 393 was decided on 28.2.2001 by a Division Bench of this High Court. It is not brought to the notice of this court that the law laid down in the case 2001 (1) GLT 393 has been over-ruled by a larger bench. When two views are adopted by two different branches of the same High Court, of course, at a different point of time, the later view perhaps would prevail. 11. The provisions of order 13, rule 4 have been incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure for admission of documents in evidence before settlement of the issues. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court and this High Court, I am of the considered view that it would not be open for the appellant to question the admissibility of Exhibit-4 at this stage and I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by Mr. M. Guite, learned counsel for the appellant. 13. In respect of second issue raised by the appellant, that the fault liability has not been discharged by the respondent is not sustainable in view of the evidence of the claimant. The claimant in her evidence categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash driving of the vehicle and the driver could not negotiate the turning due to such rash and negligent driving. This piece of evidence is not found to have been rebutted by cross-examining the witness. For a proof of particular fact, no number of witness is required if the testimony of a solitary witness is found acceptable, the same can be accepted without any reservation. Section 134 of the Evidence Act also speaks for that no number of witness is required for proving a particular fact. The claimant has successfully found to have discharged her burden, I do not see any sufficient force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. It is in the evidence on record that the claimant did never stick to her income. At one point of time, she stated the her monthly income stood at Rs. 5000 and another time at Rs. 3000 P.M. The learned tribunal, while calculating the award took the monthly income at Rs. 14. It is in the evidence on record that the claimant did never stick to her income. At one point of time, she stated the her monthly income stood at Rs. 5000 and another time at Rs. 3000 P.M. The learned tribunal, while calculating the award took the monthly income at Rs. 5000 which, however, cannot be taken into consideration in view of her'deviation in respect of her monthly income. In that situation, it would be appropriate for this court to calculate the monthly income at mean of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 3000 together which stands at Rs. 4000. 15. The award is accordingly calculated as quantified as below :- 4000 x 12 x 15 x 80/100 + 10,000 under the head pain and suffering = Rs. 5,86,000. 16. The award is modified to the extent as indicated above. This appeal is partly allowed.