Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Non-claimant Insurance Company has filed this appeal being aggrieved with award dated 21.10.2008 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.9), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.126/2008, by which learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,07,095/- to claimant-respondent for injuries sustained by him in a road accident took place on 03.09.2007. 2. Facts in brief are that claimant was a Constable in Rajasthan Police and deployed at Saint Xavier Circle, Jaipur, to control the traffic. When he was leaving the place of his duty, suddenly a motorcycle No.RJ-14-ST-5846, which was being driven by non-claimant-respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit him. As a result of the accident, he sustained various injuries. At that time he was 35 years of age and was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. On account of the accident the claimant sustained 7.58% permanent disability. 3. Learned counsel for appellant argued that there was no evidence which could have held the driver of the vehicle solely negligent for the accident. The claimant has miserably failed to prove that there was negligence of the driver or involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The claimant has not examined the doctor to prove his loss of earning capacity and, as such, it cannot be said that there was any loss of earning capacity of the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him. The claimant is a government servant and he would not suffer any loss in earning capacity. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent supported the award and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the claimant in his statement has stated that on 03.09.2007 he was performing his duty as traffic constable at Saint Xavier Crossway, Jaipur. It was when his duty was off he was leaving the place, suddenly a motorcycle came being driven rashly and negligently and hit him. The motorcyclist was crossing the red light. When traffic constable tried to stop the motorcyclist, he took a u-turn and drove the motorcycle to his side and hit him, as a result of which he became unconscious. The claimant has also produced his duty chart on the record. The motorcyclist was crossing the red light. When traffic constable tried to stop the motorcyclist, he took a u-turn and drove the motorcycle to his side and hit him, as a result of which he became unconscious. The claimant has also produced his duty chart on the record. From the evidence and documents on record, it is clear that due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist, the accident took place. The claimant also lodged a first information report immediately after the accident took place for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. In the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act the motorcyclist has admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle and on 3.9.2007 he was driving the same. From the injury-report dated 3.9.2007 (Exhibit-5), it is evident that the claimant received the injuries in the accident. The claimant has also produced on record the permanent disability certificate (Exhibit-10) and therein the doctors have assessed the permanent disability sustained by the claimant to be 7.58%. Mere non-production of medical officer giving certificate cannot be a reason to discard a certificate issued by the medical board consisting of three doctors. The non-claimant insurance company has failed to produce any evidence on the record to show that the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid or effective licence and that he would have been driving the vehicle following the traffic rules. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that due to the disability suffered by the claimant, he would face difficulty in performing his duty in double shift and thus he would not get hard-duty allowance in future during entire service career. On account of the accident, he was to take 90 days leave for first time and thereafter he remained on leave for 60 days. He would face difficulty in ascending the stairs and siting cross leg and squat. In view of above discussion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in awarding the compensation, which call for any interference in the award. 6. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.