Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellant Rajendra dissatisfied with award dated 04.01.2003 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity, in MAC Case No.90/2000, by which learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- for 42% permanent disability sustained by him in road accident involving a vehicle insured with the respondent No.2 insurance company. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that even though the permanent disability of the appellant on account of various injuries was assessed by the duly constituted medical board of three doctors of Government General Hospital, Karauli, which fact was proved by the appellant by producing on record the disability certificate (Exhibit-8) issued by duly constituted medical board, but learned Tribunal did not believe that document merely by observing that said certificate has not been given in a prescribed proforma and that no doctor has been produced to prove this certificate. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the document (Exhibit-8), the permanent disability certificate given by the medical board of Government General Hospital, Karauli. 3. It is argued that the claimant at the relevant time was working as a stone mason and he was a skilled labourer and that his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-. It is on that basis the compensation should have been computed rather than awarding lump sum compensation i.e. Rs.11000/- for injuries, Rs.1500/- for medical expenses, Rs.16,000/- for pains and sufferings and Rs.15,000/- for loss of property. It was argued that learned Tribunal by aforesaid award has virtually not granted any compensation whatsoever for loss of earning capacity of the appellant. There was no justification for completely discarding disability certificate issued by the duly constituted Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Karauli. Mere fact that doctor was not produced, does mean that the disability certificate was not genuine. 4. No one has been appearing for respondents in this matter for quite some time and thus the matter is heard and considered on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 5. Mere fact that doctor was not produced, does mean that the disability certificate was not genuine. 4. No one has been appearing for respondents in this matter for quite some time and thus the matter is heard and considered on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal has discarded the medical certificate giving two reasons; one is that it was not disability certificate given in prescribed proforma but what is the prescribed proforma has not been specified and this certificate is on record which fulfills the requirement of the law although at the caption it is mentioned that the certificate was meant for scholarship/employment/pension/government aid/roadways/ railway concession etc., but nevertheless the certificate has given the description of accident and the disability of the claimant in the following terms:- "H/O Motorcycle accident in Oct 99 for which he was treated at Jaipur and Spica cast given for (40 days?). Treated conservatively at present on examination there is shortening by one and half inches. Partial ankylosis Rt knee and Rt ankle. Restriction of external rotation, flexon & abduction at Rt hip. Permanent disability is forty two percent." 6. Mere non production of the medical officer giving certificate cannot be a reason to discard a certificate issued by the medical board consisting of two medical officers of the government hospital, one of which was a senior medical officer and two were junior medical officers of Government General Hospital, Karauli. 7. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 1999, a sum of Rs.68/- per day was being paid to a skilled labourer and on that basis the monthly income would come to Rs.2040/- and its 40% would come to Rs.800/- for loss of income on account of permanent disability. The age of the claimant at the relevant time was 22 years and, keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the multiplier of 18 should be applied. The compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity comes to Rs.1,72,800/-, counting thus 800x12x18. The compensation on other non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.1,500/- for medial expenses, Rs.16,000/- for mental agony, physical pain etc. and Rs.1,500/- for damages caused to clothes and shoes, is maintained. 8. The compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity comes to Rs.1,72,800/-, counting thus 800x12x18. The compensation on other non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.1,500/- for medial expenses, Rs.16,000/- for mental agony, physical pain etc. and Rs.1,500/- for damages caused to clothes and shoes, is maintained. 8. The appellant is thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.1,91,000/-, which includes compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability suffered by him. The appellant is also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its certified copy is produced before respondent No.2 insurance company. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.