JUDGMENT Wangdi, J. This Appeal is directed against judgment dated 25-05-2012 in MACT Case No.22 of 2009 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, by which the claim petition for compensation of Rs.4,14,984/- against permanent partial disablement filed by the Appellant was rejected by allowing only Rs.51,184/-. 2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that in the morning of 07-08-2008 at about 10 a.m. the Appellant while travelling in a taxi jeep bearing registration No.SK- 04/4043 from Singtam to Mazitar got grievously injured when the taxi jeep collided with SNT tanker bearing No.SK-03/3481 thereby causing permanent disability to his right knee (patella) due to which he is unable to perform his day-to-day activities as he can neither bend his right knee nor walk normally. This disability had caused a severe set back in his business of poultry farm from which he was earning Rs.17,000/- only per month and that he is aged about 45 years having a dependant wife and two school going children aged about 15 and 16 years. As per the Appellant, the loss of earning he had suffered due to the accident is about Rs.4,14,984/. 3. The Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the claim by filing separate written objections. While the Respondent No.2, i.e., Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, has restricted his objection to the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the accident taxi jeep, the Respondent No.1, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, on the other hand, dealt with the claim also on the merits of it on various grounds which, in my view, are not relevant considering the limited question necessary to be determined in the present case. 4. The Learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are set out hereinbelow:- (i) Whether the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties? (ii) Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the SNT Tanker bearing registration no.SK-03/3481 or the driver of Mahindra Max bearing registration no.SK-04/4043? (iii) Whether the driving licence of the driver Jiban Thapa of Mahindra Max bearing registration no.SK04/4043 was valid and genuine at the time of the accident? (iv) Whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine? (iii) Whether the driving licence of the driver Jiban Thapa of Mahindra Max bearing registration no.SK04/4043 was valid and genuine at the time of the accident? (iv) Whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine? (v) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the claimants entitled? All issues were decided in favour of the Appellant except for issue no.(iv) resulting in the issue no.(v) being decided on different considerations which is the subject matter of the present Appeal. 5. Considering the pleadings and the proceedings held before the Learned Claims Tribunal the parties have restricted their arguments before this Court as regard issue no.4 only, i.e., “whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine”. It is their case that if it is held that income certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is genuine then different consideration will have to be applied to issues no.(iv) and (v). 6(i). Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, no doubt sought to question the finding on issue no. (iii), i.e., the validity of the driving licence of the driver involved in the accident, and the quantum of the compensation that the Appellant would have been entitled to considering the actual loss of earning suffered by him against the disability of 20%. (ii) The objection raised by Mr. Bhutia, in my view, is impermissible as no Cross Appeal has been filed by the Respondent No.2 against the finding on issue no.(iii), i.e., on the question of validity of the driving licence of the driver of the accident vehicle. When asked of him on this, Mr. Bhutia submitted that no instructions were received by him from the Respondent No.2. Even the other question, i.e., the quantum of compensation, raised by Mr. Bhutia calls for outright rejection since the Respondent No.2 had chosen not to raise any objection on this account before the Learned Claims Tribunal in their written objection. Raising the objection for the first time at this stage, in my view, is an afterthought. The case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another : (2011) 1 SCC 343 which Mr. Bhutia referred to no doubt is a law settled by the Apex Court and we are bound by the principles set out in paragraph 19 thereof. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. The case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another : (2011) 1 SCC 343 which Mr. Bhutia referred to no doubt is a law settled by the Apex Court and we are bound by the principles set out in paragraph 19 thereof. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Nothing had been stated during the trial either orally or in writing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 as to what the actual loss ought to have been. There is not even a whisper on this before the Learned Claims Tribunal. It would not, therefore, lie in favour of the Respondent No.2 to raise such objection at this stage. The Motor Vehicles Act, particularly after Chapter 9 onwards, is a benevolent piece of legislation to meet the very circumstance faced by a victim of a motor vehicle accident like the Appellant in the present case. There is no dispute of the fact that the taxi jeep met with an accident with a SNT tanker on the fateful day. There is also no dispute of the fact that serious injuries were sustained by the Appellant rendering him permanently partially disabled to the extent of 20%. It is also an admitted position that the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with the Respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, there is no reason as to why the Appellant should not be considered in the spirit of the legislation under which he has preferred the claim. 7. Under the above facts and circumstances, we may consider the question under issue no.(iv) framed by the Learned Claims Tribunal, i.e., “whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine”? 8. I have examined and considered the findings on this and I am of the view that the Learned Claims Tribunal has misdirected itself in rejecting the certificate of income, Exhibit 9. The finding of the Learned Claims Tribunal that the Appellant ought to have filed and exhibited the documents upon which the certificate Exhibit 9 had been issued and, that the Chartered Accountant himself ought to have been examined to test the veracity of the annual income certified by him through cross-examination is, in my view, quite erroneous. During the course of evidence the Insurance Company-Respondent No.2 has not at all cross-examined the Appellant on the Statement of Annual Income, Exhibit 9. During the course of evidence the Insurance Company-Respondent No.2 has not at all cross-examined the Appellant on the Statement of Annual Income, Exhibit 9. It was the Respondent No.1, the owner, who chose to do so as would appear from below: “…………. It is true that I have not filed Panchayat Report to substantiate my annual income nor any report to prove that I was running Poultry business. Witness volunteer to say that I have filed certificate regarding poultry business from Chartered Accountant from Gangtok. …………. It is true that I have not filed any supporting document which was relied by the Chartered Accountant while preparing my statement of annual income already marked as Exhibit-9. ………… It is not a fact that Exhibit-9 is false and manufactured document for the purpose of this present case. …………….” On a perusal of the cross-examination, I find nothing that falsifies Exhibit 9 and, therefore, is of no consequence to the case of the Appellant. 9. The Appellant as P.W.1 is found to have been corroborated in full measure by his wife Smt. Dhacha Chettri in her evidence as P.W.2. The only cross-examination on this point by the Respondent No.1 is that “my husband had not filed the primary documents basing which Exhibit 9 was prepared” which also appears to be of no effect being of the same character as that of the Appellant’s evidence discussed above and, for the reasons that follow hereafter. 10. The Statement of Annual Income, Exhibit 9, has apparently been issued under a Memo number being 058506 dated 04-05-2009 with the following endorsement:- “We have checked the above “Statement of Annual Income” of Mr. Man Bahadur Chettri S/o Late Kul Bahadur Chettri of Makha, East Sikkim, carrying on the business of Poultry in Makha, East Sikkim for the year ended 31.03.2007, 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 with related documents as produced before us for verification. We found the same in accordance therewith and certify as correct.” Reference to a memo number indicates that the Chartered Accountant maintains record of such documents as enjoined by law, i.e., the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. This is a relevant fact considered even in the light of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 11. In my view, the Statement or the certificate having been issued by the Chartered Accountant acting under the authority of a Statute deserves credibility. This is a relevant fact considered even in the light of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 11. In my view, the Statement or the certificate having been issued by the Chartered Accountant acting under the authority of a Statute deserves credibility. There is a presumption of correctness in the endorsement made by a Chartered Accountant and it certainly does not deserve summary rejection as done by the Learned Claims Tribunal. 12. It is no doubt true that examination of the Chartered Accountant as a witness would have been the ideal situation but this by itself would not be sufficient to render at naught the weight and force of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant who is a creation of a Statute acting within the powers and liabilities set out thereunder. Moreover, nothing has been shown by the Respondents as to why the certificate should be doubted and no evidence to the contrary is found to have been adduced on behalf of the Respondents. 13. Mr. Umesh Ranpal, Learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, referred to a Single Bench decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Karicherry Charadan Nair and Another vs. Edayillam Kunhambu Nair and Others : AIR 1982 Kerala 232 to submit that the entries made in the report of a Chartered Accountant would be admissible without examining of the Chartered Accountant himself. The following paragraph has been specifically referred to by him:- “15. To say that the entries are admissible without examination of the maker does not mean that in all cases and in all circumstances, the entries have the same probative value. The probative value of such entries depends on a host of circumstances as also other evidence which may be adduced in a given case. Of course, if the maker of the entries is examined in court, the court will be in a better position to assess the probative value of the entries. Even without such examination the court has to assess the probative value of the entries. In this case the testimony of P. W. 2 is that registers were prepared after local inspection by the village assistant. Hence they must certainly have some value. No motive is attributed to the concerned village assistant to make such entries in regard to the property covered by the disputed item. In this case the testimony of P. W. 2 is that registers were prepared after local inspection by the village assistant. Hence they must certainly have some value. No motive is attributed to the concerned village assistant to make such entries in regard to the property covered by the disputed item. …………………….” Although the decision is of a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court, I am persuaded to agree with the above principle enunciated by it and see no reason as to why the Statement of Annual Income, Exhibit 9 should not be accepted as a reliable piece of evidence. For these reasons, the finding of the Learned Claims Tribunal on issue no.(iv) is liable to be set aside. 14. There is, however, a discrepancy noticed in the claim made by the Appellant in as much as he has relied upon the income calculated as on 31-03-2009 as worked out in Exhibit 9. Mr. Ajay Rathi, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that since the accident took place on 07-08-2008, the income assessed for the year ending on 31-03-2008 would be applicable in respect of the Appellant being the year in which he had suffered from the disability. I find substance in this submission and, therefore, the compensation may be calculated by taking the income of the year ending on 31-03-2008. 15. Under the facts and circumstances, therefore, the findings on issue no.(v) stand modified as under:- Annual income of the Appellant for the year 31-03-2008 Rs. 1,98,900.00 percentage of the disability 20% Loss of income, therefore, — 20% of Rs.1,98,900/- [in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive] Rs. 39,780.00 Applicable Multiplied – 14 [The age of the deceased at the time of accident about 45 years and the relevant multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 is ‘14’] (39,780 x 14) Rs. 5,56,920.00 Medical expenses [attached medical bills during the trial] (+) Rs. 6,184.00 Rs. 5,63,104.00 Less interim relief [Rs.25,000/- as interim payment received by the Appellant vide Order dated 09-03-2010 during the trial] (-) Rs. 25,000.00 Total Rs.5,38,104.00 The Appellant shall also be entitled to simple interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 10% from the date of the claim petition until its full and final payment. 16. 6,184.00 Rs. 5,63,104.00 Less interim relief [Rs.25,000/- as interim payment received by the Appellant vide Order dated 09-03-2010 during the trial] (-) Rs. 25,000.00 Total Rs.5,38,104.00 The Appellant shall also be entitled to simple interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 10% from the date of the claim petition until its full and final payment. 16. In the result, the MAC App. is allowed and impugned judgment of the Learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside. 17. No order as to costs. 18. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award as modified within a period of six weeks from hence. A compliance report to this effect shall be filed by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company on the expiration of six weeks. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and the Original records be transmitted forthwith to the Learned Claims Tribunal for its due compliance.