1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File no. 223/Claims titled as Sukhdev Sharma v. Mohan Lal and others (for short, impugned award) whereby an award of Rs. 8,32,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1 from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 2. Sukhdev Sharma, claimant-respondent no.1 being the victim of motor vehicular accident invoked jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu by medium of a Claim Petition titled as Sukhdev Sharma v. Mohan Lal and others claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 34.50 lacs as per the break ups given in the claim petition. It is averred that he while going on his scooter along with one Sohan Singh met with an accident with Matador bearing registration no.JK02Q-2872 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of, which claimant-respondent no.1 sustained serious injuries on his leg. He was earning Rs. 7000/- per month from all sources. 3. Appellant-insurer owner have not contested the claim petition, thus were set ex parte. Following issues came to be framed :- 1. Whether an incident occurred on 29.08.2005 at village Burn, Tehsil Jammu by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. JK02Q 2872 being driven in the hands of driver in which petitioner Sukhdev Sharma and Sohan Singh sustained grievous ?OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so of what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence and plied the vehicle in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 4. Whether accident has taken place by the negligence of petitioner while driving load carrier no.JK02L 1757 if so how ? OPP1 5. Relief. OP Parties. 4. Claimant-respondent no.1 has examined witnesses, namely, Jagdish Raj, Devinder Singh, Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Dr.Rakesh Sarap. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence, thus evidence of claimant-respondent no.1 has remained un-re-butted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not questioned the findings returned on issue no.1. OPP1 5. Relief. OP Parties. 4. Claimant-respondent no.1 has examined witnesses, namely, Jagdish Raj, Devinder Singh, Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Dr.Rakesh Sarap. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence, thus evidence of claimant-respondent no.1 has remained un-re-butted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not questioned the findings returned on issue no.1. However, after scanning the evidence of the claimant-respondent no.1 which has remained un-rebutted, it is proved that the accident was caused due to rash and negligently driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no JK02Q-2872 which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently on 29.08.2005 at village Burn, Tehsil and Distt. Jammu in which claim- ant-respondent no.1 and one Sohan Singh sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue no.1 are upheld and, accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1. 6. Before discussing issues no.2 and 4, I deem it proper to deal with issue no.3. Issue no. 3 7. Appellant-Insurer has to discharge the onus, but it has failed to do so. Thus, has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and was plying the vehicle in breach of the insurance policy, in the given circumstances, Tribunal has rightly decided issue no.3 against the appellant-insurer and in favour of the claimant. Issue no. 2. 8. Admittedly, the claimant was the victim of vehicular accident and remained under treatment in Govt. Medical College, Jammu, Jammu and thereafter taken to ASCOMS for considerable period of time. Claimant has proved that he has spent Rs. 88,125/- for his medical treatment, which remained un-rebutted. Dr. J.P. Singh has also stated that claimant-respondent no.1 was under his treatment from 29.08.2005 to 30.01.2006 at ASCOMS Hospital, Jammu. He has suffered severe traumatic brain injuries comprising of left basal ganglonic contusion, traumatic SAH and severe brain oedema. His final bill was of Rs. 88,125/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant while addressing argument on the question of disability certificate stated that according to him Dr. Rakesh Saraf was not an Expert and he has not treated the injured. He has only signed the certificate. However, Dr. Saraf has specifically deposed that he was member of the Board which was constituted by the head of the department-competent authority. Rakesh Saraf was not an Expert and he has not treated the injured. He has only signed the certificate. However, Dr. Saraf has specifically deposed that he was member of the Board which was constituted by the head of the department-competent authority. All the members of the Board have signed the said disability certificate. In terms of the mandate of law, disability certificate is to be issued by the Board and not by the concerned Doctor who has treated the victim at the time of accident or thereafter. Appellant-Insurer has not questioned the basic certificate i.e., disability certificate and has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Said certificate is exhibited as EXPW-RS. In the given circumstances, Dr. Rakesh Saraf has also supported evidence of the claimant, which has remained un-rebutted. 10. Other witnesses, namely, Dr. Rajesh Gupta and Dr. J.P.Singh have deposed beyond any reasonable doubt that the injured has suffered grievous severe traumatic brain injury, which has made the life of the injured miserable. It is apt to reproduce statements of Dr. Rajesh Gupta and Dr. J.P. Singh:- "PW. Dr. Rajesh Gupta has stated that he has seen the copy of medical certificate dated 30.11.2006 on court file issued by the Medical Record Officer of GMC, Jammu. As per this certificate petitioner Sohan Singh son of Satpal Singh R/O Kot Bhalwal, Jammu was examined by him in Ortho Unit IB vide OPD no.5573 dated 30.10.2006. He was an old case of compound type-11 fracture both bones left leg with lacerated would over left knee with alleged history of RTA with MLC no.3169 dated 29.08.2005. Open reduction and internal fixation with V-nail was done for fracture left tibia and at present petitioner has pain and stiffness of left knee and left ankle and his permanent physical disability amounts of 25% of left lower limb. The certificate on comparing with the original record of the hospital which too is on court file and today shown to him is found to be correct. Note: It is exhibited as EXPW RG. Petitioner with this 25% disability will have difficulty in sitting, running, squatting. Petitioner will require another minor procedure for removal of nail. In cross examination by the counsel for the respondent company stated that petitioner was not treated by him but he has only issue the disability certificate after examination of the petitioner. Note: It is exhibited as EXPW RG. Petitioner with this 25% disability will have difficulty in sitting, running, squatting. Petitioner will require another minor procedure for removal of nail. In cross examination by the counsel for the respondent company stated that petitioner was not treated by him but he has only issue the disability certificate after examination of the petitioner. 25% permanent disability is of the affected limb and not of the whole body and if assessed of the whole body it will reduce to half. He has not treated the petitioner but only has examined him and issued the disability certificate. The disability is assessed according to the Book AL-LIMCO Kanpur. 11. PW. Dr. J.P.Singh has stated that the petitioner Sukhdev Sharma has remained under my treatment from 29.08.2005 to 30.01.2006 at ASCOMS Hospital, Jammu. He was diagnosed to have severe traumatic brain injuries comprising of left basal ganglionic contusion, traumatic SAH and severe brain oedema. In addition he had multiple mandibular fractures At the admission he was unconscious. He was managed conservatively in the ICU. He required assisted ventilation for over a month for his neurological problems. His mandibular fractures were fixed by the Dental Surgeon. He remained in the ICU for more than two months. The petitioner gained consciousness after removal from ventilator. During the treatment he had mandible fracture for which he was operated and also had tracheotomy done. Treatment in ASCOMS hospital is not free. His final hospital bill was Rs. 88,125/-excluding medicines and consumable items. The bills attached with the file are prescribed and have been attested by Resident Doctor of the hospital. He remained under treatment as OPD patient after being discharged from the hospital. The patient require high protein, high calorie diet during hospitalization. These injuries had motor disability in addition to cognitive impairment. In cross examination by the counsel for the respondent company stated that the petitioner was initially admitted in GMC Jammu from there he was brought by his relatives to ASCOMS Hospital on the same day. I do not know whether the facilities and the treatments which the petitioner has been proved from this hospital are available in GMC Jammu or not but most of the patients come because of non-availability of ICU beds. I do not know whether the facilities and the treatments which the petitioner has been proved from this hospital are available in GMC Jammu or not but most of the patients come because of non-availability of ICU beds. I do not know whether the beds were available or not in the GMC Jammu at the time when the patient came to ASCOMS. The RTA case written in our case history file was allegedly reported by the accompanying relatives and according to the hospital records states that he was driving a scooter when a matador hit him. Hospital record was prepared as per the information given by the relatives of the patient and the injuries were compatible with the accidental injuries. These injuries can be because of hundred things but this particular condition was because of RTA. Particular observation given by me pertaining to RTA is based upon keeping in view the nature of injuries resulting from the vehicular accident. It is true that the present injuries suffered by the petitioner cannot be because of any other reason. The patient's C.T. scan showed the evidence of traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage and left basal ganglionic contusions along with bilateral brain redema which can happen with traumatic brain injuries. I have not seen the patient today in the court. I have seen the record there are specific instructions recorded by the die titian for high calorie protein diets for the patient. There is no OPD record available with me which shows that the patient has been treated in the OPD after his discharge. 12. Admittedly, it is proved that claimant-respondent no.1 was suffering from serious injuries and was unable to move for a pretty long time. He remained under treatment at CMC, Jammu and thereafter at ASCOMS and due to this, it effected the income of the injured. Claimant has proved that he was earning Rs. 7000/- per month and after deduction, Tribunal has held that basic income of the claimant was Rs. 2250/- and when multiplied by 12, it comes to Rs. 27000/- per annum. Tribunal while keeping the age of the injured has applied multiplier 16, which is on the lower side. However, claimant-respondent no.1 has not questioned the same, thus, reluctantly same multiplier is applied. 13. Under the head of "pain and suffering' Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2250/- and when multiplied by 12, it comes to Rs. 27000/- per annum. Tribunal while keeping the age of the injured has applied multiplier 16, which is on the lower side. However, claimant-respondent no.1 has not questioned the same, thus, reluctantly same multiplier is applied. 13. Under the head of "pain and suffering' Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1.00 lac and under the head of "loss of amenities" it has awarded Rs. 1.00 lac. While keeping the age of the claimant-injured, meagre amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, claimant has not questioned the same. Accordingly, it is maintained. 14. Tribunal has fallen in an error while awarding Rs. 2.00 lac under the head of "medical expenses', which is proved as Rs. 88,125/-. Moreso, Dr. J.P.Singh has also deposed that the total medial bill of the claimant-injured was of Rs. 88,125/-. Accordingly, on this account, Rs. 2.00 is slashed down to Rs. 88,125 under the head of "Medical Expenses". 15. Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 7.5 % from the date of filing of the claim petition, which was to be awarded from date of award @ 6% p.a. 16. Viewed thus, the claimant-respondent no.1 is held entitled to Rs. 7,20,125/-(432000+ 100000+ 100000+88,125) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till its realization. 17. The amount of compensation is directed to be released in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1 after proper identification and verification strictly in terms of the impugned award. The court fee shall be the first charge. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the Insurance Company, through "Account Payees Cheque". Accordingly, award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 18. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s). Registry to send down the records along with a copy of this order.