Judgment : Aggrieved by the Award dated 18-11-2008 in MVOP No.374 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the Tribunal”) the claimant preferred the instant MACMA on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) Routhu Likitha the injured is the minor girl aged about 3 years and represented by her mother—R.Sudha Rani. The case of the claimant is that on 27-01-2006 when the minor girl along with her parents was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 B 611 from Narasannapeta to Srikakulam and when they reached near Komarthi junction at about 10 A.M., a jeep bearing No.AP 30 U 3235 going in the same direction towards Srikakulam driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and while taking a turn from left side to the right side hit the motor cycle and caused the accident. In the resultant accident minor girl and her parents suffered injuries. The claimant is concerned, she suffered injury to head, left eye, right side of the face and also fracture of shaft femur, for which she took treatment initially in Bharat Speciality Hospital, Narasannapeta and later in Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhaptnam by incurring huge medical expenditure. It is averred that due to injuries, claimant’s face was disfigured and she suffered permanent disability to her leg. It is further averred that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. On these pleas claimant filed MVOP No.374 of 2006 against respondents 1 and 2 who are owner and insurer of the offending jeep and claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under different heads. b) Respondents opposed the claim by filing counters, inter alia, contending that the accident was occurred only due to the fault of rider of the motor cycle but not the driver of the jeep. They urged that claimant should be put to strict proof of petition averments. c) During trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. They urged that claimant should be put to strict proof of petition averments. c) During trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. d) A perusal of the award shows that considering the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is the mother and victim in the accident and also the documentary evidence Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A4-MV Inspector’s report and further considering that there was no rebuttal evidence on the part of the respondents, the Tribunal held that jeep driver was responsible for the accident. e) Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2—Dr.G.N.Srinivasa Rao and other medical evidence held that the claimant suffered one simple injury to head and one fracture of shaft femur and accordingly granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, transportation and extra nourishment etc. with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation against the respondents. Hence, the appeal by the claimant on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 3) Heard the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Agastya Sarma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent—Insurance Company. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant criticized the award mainly on the following grounds: Firstly, he argued that the Tribunal erred in granting lump sum compensation instead of granting compensation each head wise. By the lump sum method, it will be difficult to understand how much compensation is granted under each head and whether compensation is omitted in respect of any particular head. Secondly, he argued that though the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.2 and held that claimant suffered head injury and fracture of shaft femur but did not believe his evidence to the effect that claimant suffered 20% permanent disability on an erroneous observation that disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board rather it was issued by a private Doctor. He argued that Doctor who is a competent Orthopaedic Surgeon and who issued Ex.A8—Disability Certificate is no other than the one who treated the claimant in his hospital and so there is nothing wrong if he speaks about disability of the claimant. There is no hard and fast rule that disability certificate should be issued only by the Medical Board. He argued that Doctor who is a competent Orthopaedic Surgeon and who issued Ex.A8—Disability Certificate is no other than the one who treated the claimant in his hospital and so there is nothing wrong if he speaks about disability of the claimant. There is no hard and fast rule that disability certificate should be issued only by the Medical Board. He submitted that it may not be always possible for the victim to obtain disability certificate from the Medical Board. He thus argued that the Tribunal ought to have accepted Ex.A8—disability certificate coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and granted compensation for disability. Thirdly, learned counsel argued that though the claimant produced Ex.A5—medical bills for Rs.43,000/- and affirmed by P.W.2 that they were issued from his hospital, the Tribunal rejected the said medical expenditure and did not grant compensation in tune with the said expenditure on an erroneous observation that the claimant and advocate commissioner, who was appointed to record the evidence of P.W.2, did not verify the account books maintained by P.W.2 in his hospital and compare the medical bills filed by the claimant with the account books. The medical bills were rejected also on an erroneous ground that P.W.2 is not a Government Doctor and the injured was not referred by the Government Hospital or by the Police as medico legal case. He submitted that when the claimant has not approached the Government Hospital, the question of Government Hospital referring the claimant to P.W.2 does not arise and hence the Tribunal’s rejecting the medical bills on that ground is bereft of logic. Learned counsel further argued that though Ex.A5—medical bills were not compared with the duplicate copies maintained in the account books of P.W.2, still the Tribunal going by the grievous nature of injuries and length of treatment in a private hospital, ought to have allowed Ex.A5—medical bills. He thus prayed for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal. 5) Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent—Insurance Company while defending the award, argued that the claimant suffered only one grievous injury i.e. fracture of shaft femur, for which she was treated in the hospital of P.W.2. Though the claimant filed Ex.A5—medical bills but could not cogently proved those bills by comparing the bills with the account books maintained by hospital of P.W.2. Though the claimant filed Ex.A5—medical bills but could not cogently proved those bills by comparing the bills with the account books maintained by hospital of P.W.2. Therefore, the Tribunal taking the nature of injury and probable medical expenditure that could be incurred has granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/- and there is no need to interfere with the same. He thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6) In the light of the above divergent arguments the point for determination is: “Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.” 7) POINT: With reference to the first argument of appellant a perusal of award shows that the Tribunal granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- without specifying head wise compensation. Such a method was already deprecated by the High Court in a decision reported in BATTURI RAVI v. V.SHANKAR ( 2007 (3) ALD 449 ). In that decision the learned Judge observed thus: “Unfortunately, the Tribunal without specifying under what head it is awarding what compensation to the appellant, it just stated that it is awarding Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him. In all claim petitions relating to the injuries suffered by the victims, the Tribunal should specify under what head it is awarding what amount of compensation, so that, the appellate Court can verify and decide whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under a particular head is adequate or is on the higher side. If compensation is awarded in lump sum, without mentioning the heads under which it was awarded, it would be very difficult for the appellate Court to decide on what basis what amount of compensation is given to the victims and under what head.” So, it is high time the Tribunals shall pronounce compensation each head wise. Since it is lacking in the instant case, compensation is reassessed head wise. 8 a) The claimant suffered fracture to her left femur which is grievous apart from facial injuries. Hence, she is awarded Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- to grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- to facial injury under the head pain and suffering. b) The evidence shows that claimant was treated in Vaishnavi Hospital at Visakhapatnam. So, it is obvious her parents must have incurred transportation and attendant charges and also extra-nourishment charges for their daughter. Hence, she is awarded Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- to grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- to facial injury under the head pain and suffering. b) The evidence shows that claimant was treated in Vaishnavi Hospital at Visakhapatnam. So, it is obvious her parents must have incurred transportation and attendant charges and also extra-nourishment charges for their daughter. In such consideration claimant is awarded Rs.15,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. c) Then, the disability is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel is that disability certificate issued by P.W.2 was discarded by the Tribunal on the sole ground that it was not issued by the Medical Board and P.W.2 is not a Government Doctor. Learned counsel argued that P.W.2 is a qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon who treated the claimant in his hospital and, therefore, he is competent to depose about disability of the claimant. I find force in the submission of the counsel for appellant. The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A6—discharge summary would show that the claimant was treated in the Vaishnavi Hospital of P.W.2, That P.W.2 is a qualified doctor and that he treated the claimant are not disputed by the respondents, though it was suggested that he is not competent to issue disability certificate. When a doctor is qualified and treated the patient, he will be competent to speak about the disability of the patient. He stands in the position of an expert and his evidence will be relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court may accept or reject his opinionative evidence having regard to other facts and circumstances connecting to the case, but his evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he is a private doctor and the disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board. In the instant case, the Tribunal rejected Ex.A8—disability certificate issued by P.W.2 on the sole ground that it was not issued by the Medical Board and that P.W.2 is a private doctor. That approach is not correct. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to Ex.A8 has to be objectively assessed before coming to a conclusion regarding disability of the claimant. d) P.W.2 deposed that claimant—Routhu Likitha was admitted in his hospital on 27-01-2006 with injuries i.e. one head injury and fracture shaft femur which was a grievous one. That approach is not correct. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to Ex.A8 has to be objectively assessed before coming to a conclusion regarding disability of the claimant. d) P.W.2 deposed that claimant—Routhu Likitha was admitted in his hospital on 27-01-2006 with injuries i.e. one head injury and fracture shaft femur which was a grievous one. He stated that patient was treated in his hospital by applying pin traction. He also stated that the girl suffered 20% disability and there could be some problem with the movement of the child. He further stated that he has given disability certificate depending upon clinical condition and X rays. In the cross-examination he stated that fracture was reunited and she is able to walk. This is the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to the treatment and disability of the child. Then in Ex.A8—disability certificate it is mentioned that R.Likitha suffered 20% functional disability and she was experiencing pain and stiffness. A careful analysis of evidence of P.W.2 would show that he has not mentioned whether the disability is permanent or not. Since admittedly the fracture was reunited and the claimant is only a tender aged girl, the chances of her getting rid of disability while growing up cannot be ruled out. So, considering all these aspects her disability is accepted as 10% partial and accordingly she is awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for her disability. 9) Then regarding medical expenditure, the argument of appellant is that though the claimant produced Ex.A5—medical bills for Rs.43,173/- affirmed by P.W.2 that they were issued from his hospital, the Tribunal did not grant compensation to the full extent of medical bills on the ground that the medical bills were not compared with account books maintained by P.W.2 in his hospital. I find force in this contention too. The Tribunal ought not to have rejected the medical bills on the mere ground that those medical bills were not compared with account books maintained in the hospital of P.W.2. Instead, the Tribunal ought to have granted reasonable amount towards medical expenditure having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the length of the treatment underwent in a private hospital. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A6—discharge summary shows that claimant suffered fracture shaft left femur and head injury in the resultant accident, for which she was treated in Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam from 27-01-2006 to 15-02-2006. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A6—discharge summary shows that claimant suffered fracture shaft left femur and head injury in the resultant accident, for which she was treated in Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam from 27-01-2006 to 15-02-2006. Having regard to the grievous nature of fracture injury and the length of treatment in a private hospital at Visakhapatnam, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.43,200/- towards medical expenditure. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimant under different heads is as follows: Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000-00 Transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment - Rs.15,000-00 Permanent disability - Rs.10,000-00 Medical expenditure - Rs.43,200-00 Total - Rs.83,200-00 For the above reasons, compensation is enhanced by Rs.33,200/-(83,200 – 50,000). 10) In the result, this MACMA is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced by Rs.33,200/- with proportionate costs and simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of O.P. till realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, execution can be taken against them. Consequent to this order, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.