Judgment : 1) Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.199 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), as inadequate, the injured-claimant preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. 2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimant's case is that on 09-08-2004 while he was riding his scooter bearing No.AP 1 C 6005 along with his relative Vinod as pillion rider and proceeding from Nirmal to Sirgapur and on the way when they reached Chityal Bus Stand at about 5:00 p.m., a jeep bearing No. AP 1 T 5905 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and went on wrong side and dashed the scooter of the claimant and thus, caused the accident. In the resultant accident, Vinod died and the claimant suffered fracture of maxilla and fracture to his left tibia besides loosening of upper teeth and bleeding injuries to right toe, nose and mouth. The further case of the claimant is that immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal, and therefrom he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Later, he took treatment in Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, as inpatient from 10-08-2004 to 23-08-2004 and underwent operation for his fracture maxilla and reduction to fractured left tibia. He also suffered 40% disability. He incurred medical expenditure of Rs.40,000/-. On these pleas, he filed O.P.No.199 of 2005 initially against respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of the jeep and 3rd respondent is insurer. On the death of 2nd respondent, he got added his legal-heir as 4th respondent. b) Respondents 1 and 4 remained ex parte. c) The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim. d) During trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.11 and Ex.C.1 were marked on behalf of claimant. The 3rd respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but got marked Ex.B.1-policy. e) The judgment of the Tribunal would show that basing on the evidence of claimant (P.W.1) and Ex.A.1- F.I.R. and Ex.A.5-charge sheet, the Tribunal held that fault lies with the jeep driver. Then, compensation is concerned, the Tribunal granted Rs.33,000/- for pain and suffering due to fractures, transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, the Tribunal also granted Rs.26,965/- towards medical expenditure. Then, compensation is concerned, the Tribunal granted Rs.33,000/- for pain and suffering due to fractures, transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, the Tribunal also granted Rs.26,965/- towards medical expenditure. The Tribunal disbelieved the plea of the claimant that he suffered 40% disability on the ground that he did not produce certificate issued by Medical Board. Thus, in all, the tribunal granted Rs.59,965/- (Rs.33,000/- + Rs.26,965/-) as compensation with proportionate costs and simple interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence, the appeal. 3) Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant. No representation for respondents. 4) Now, the point for determination is: “Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is legally and factually sustainable”? 5) POINT: Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the award on two grounds. Firstly that the trial Court granted a very low amount of Rs.33,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges and transportation charges. He submitted that each fracture injury is a grievous one and thereby, the claimant suffered heavy pain. Due to fracture of maxilla and loosening of teeth, he could not able to move his mouth and chew food for longtime. Similarly, due to fracture of left tibia, he suffered extreme pain and could not walk and attend his works for a considerable period. Therefore, considering the associated pain and suffering, the trial Court ought to have granted a reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering. Instead, he argued, the trial Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.33,000/- not only for pain and suffering but also the other incidental expenditure like transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges which is unjust. He submitted that a perusal of the award would show as if no separate compensation was awarded for the incidental expenditure like transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant expenditure. Hence, reasonable compensation may be awarded separately for pain and suffering and also for other incidental expenditure. a) Secondly, he argued that though P.Ws.2 and 3, who treated and performed surgeries to left leg and maxilla of the petitioner, deposed that the petitioner suffered 40% disability, the Tribunal did not believe their evidence on the simple reason that the claimant did not produce disability certificate issued by Medical Board. Learned counsel argued that the said observation is unreasonable and therefore, considering the disability suffered by the claimant, just compensation may be awarded. Learned counsel argued that the said observation is unreasonable and therefore, considering the disability suffered by the claimant, just compensation may be awarded. 6) In the light of the above arguments, I perused the award of the Tribunal. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A2-Injury Certificate issued by Government Civil Hospital, Nirmal, Ex.A3- Certificate issued by P.W.3 of Navata Multi Specialty Dental Care Center, Nizamabad, and Ex.A4-Medical Certificate issued by P.W.2 would show that the claimant suffered bilateral fracture of maxilla and fracture of left tibia apart from other simple injuries in the resultant accident. For those injuries, he was treated in Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, by P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon whereas P.W.3 is a Dental Surgeon. P.W.2 performed surgery to his left tibia whereas P.W.3 performed surgery to fractured maxilla. The appellant-claimant was inpatient in Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital from 10-08-2004 to 23-08-2004. These facts are proved from the above said evidence. 7) Then, coming to compensation, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- each for the two grievous injuries and Rs.3,000/- to the simple injury. Though it mentioned that the petitioner would have incurred expenditure towards transportation charges, extra nourishment charges and attendant charges, it did not grant any separate compensation for those items but included them in the aforesaid amount of Rs.33,000/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the length of treatment, I think the compensation for the above items is very low. It is the case of the claimant that due to fracture maxilla, he could not move his mouth and chew food items for considerable period and similarly, due to fracture tibia, he could not pursue his daily activities. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner must have suffered excruciating pain due to the above injuries. Considering it, for the pain and suffering due to grievous injuries and also other simple injuries, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is held as reasonable compensation and hence, the same is granted. The evidence shows that the petitioner was inpatient in Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, from 10-08-2004 to 23-08-2004. Therefore, it is clear that the claimant must have incurred incidental expenditure like transportation charges, extra nourishment charges and attendant charges. The evidence shows that the petitioner was inpatient in Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, from 10-08-2004 to 23-08-2004. Therefore, it is clear that the claimant must have incurred incidental expenditure like transportation charges, extra nourishment charges and attendant charges. Though he could not produce relevant bills for those items of expenditure, still having regard to his hospitalization and surgeries, it can be said that the petitioner incurred expenditure under those heads. Hence, he deserves a reasonable compensation for those items. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, attendant expenses and extra nourishment charges. 8) Coming to the second argument of appellant on the aspect of Tribunal rejecting compensation for his disability, perusal of the judgment would show that the Tribunal held that though PW.2 deposed that claimant suffered 40% disability, it cannot be believed because the claimant has not produced any certificate issued by medical board or any authorized board. It appears to me that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for discarding the evidence of PW.2 is not satisfactory. It is not a hard and fast rule that an injured-claimant in order to prove his disability must invariably produce a certificate issued by medical board. That may not be possible in all cases also. Law does not say that the factum of disability must be established only by a certificate issued by medical board. On the other hand, the factum of disability can be established through a doctor who is medically competent to speak of the concerned disability. So, if a competent doctor appears before a Court of law and explains the nature and extent of disability and the associated problems due to that disability and if his competency is not challenged by the adverse party and when no counter material is produced to establish what the doctor deposed is false, then there is nothing wrong in Court accepting the evidence of such a medical witness. In that context, the evidence of PW.2 has to be scrutinized. 9) PW.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon attached to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad where the claimant took treatment. PW.2 deposed that he examined the claimant and treated him as inpatient from 10.08.2004 to 23.08.2004 and that the claimant was operated for left tibia and a rod was inserted. In that context, the evidence of PW.2 has to be scrutinized. 9) PW.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon attached to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad where the claimant took treatment. PW.2 deposed that he examined the claimant and treated him as inpatient from 10.08.2004 to 23.08.2004 and that the claimant was operated for left tibia and a rod was inserted. PW.2 further deposed that he again examined the claimant on 27.10.2007 and issued Ex.C.1- certificate, mentioning that the fractured left tibia was mal-united and having mild infection at fracture site. PW.2 deposed that the claimant suffered 40% partial permanent disability. In the cross-examination, the competency of PW.2 to speak of the disability aspect is not challenged. It was only suggested that he was deposing falsehood to help the patient, which he denied. It was also suggested that the claimant suffered only simple injuries and the same was also denied. So it can be said that the evidence of the doctor stood unchallenged. Further, the Insurance Company which claimed that the claimant suffered only simple injuries and not any disability, did not adduce any contra evidence like examining another specialist doctor or requesting the Court to refer the claimant to medical board. In these circumstances, I think the evidence of PW.2 can be accepted. Then the evidence of PW.2 would show that the functional disability of the claimant is only partial. In the O.P, the claimant described himself as attender in D.F.O office, Nirmal. Having regard to the nature of his job, it can be said that the partial permanent disability will not completely disallow him to attend his job and daily pursuits. Therefore, considering all these aspects a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded as compensation for disability. 10) In view of the above discussion, compensation payable to the appellant-claimant under different heads is detailed as below: S.No. Compensation Head Amount Rs. 1 Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 2 Transportation, Extra Nourishment and Attendant Charges 10,000/- 3 Compensation for Disability 15,000/- 4 Medical Expenditure 29,965/- TOTAL 1,04,965/- Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.1,04,965/- – Rs.59,965/-) against respondents 1, 3 and 4. 11) In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed granting enhancement of compensation of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and simple interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant and against respondents 1, 3 and 4. 11) In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed granting enhancement of compensation of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and simple interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant and against respondents 1, 3 and 4. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. No order as to costs. ­ 12) Miscellaneous applications if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.