Judgment C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. C.M.A. No. 483 of 2005 is filed by the Insurance Company against award, dated 27.01.2004. in W.C. No. 79 of 1999 (NF) on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short 'the Commissioner') feeling aggrieved by award of Rs. 75,833/- towards compensation in favour of Gaddamidi Papaiah, S/o Balaiah. 2. C.M.A. No. 1626 of 2004 is filed by the said Gaddamidi Papaiah feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour in W.C. No. 79 of 1999. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in C.M.A. No. 483 of 2005. 4. The facts leading to the filing of W.C. No. 79 of 1999 are, briefly, stated as under: 5. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the tractor and trailor bearing Nos. AP 25 B 9957 and AP 25 B 9958, respectively. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was engaged by respondent No. 2 on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- and daily batta of Rs. 50/-. It is his further pleaded case that on 18.01.1998, while he was travelling as a labourer for loading and unloading in the said trailor and when the tractor has reached the limits of Lingampally Kalan, at about 8.00 pm., the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and in a zigzag manner, resulting in the tractor and trailor falling in a ditch, on account of which, respondent No. 1 has fallen down from the trailor and sustained fracture of both bones of right hand, multiple fracture of right hip, fracture of both bones of left leg, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs and multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body. Therefore, he has claimed Rs. 3 lakhs in lumpsum as compensation. 6. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has supported the case of respondent No. 1. 7. On behalf of the appellant, a duly Constituted Attorney filed a counter affidavit, wherein while denying the liability of the appellant, it was specifically stated that the tractor and trailor alleged to have been involved in the accident was used only for agricultural purpose, that it was not used for carrying labourers and that therefore the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation. 8. 8. Based on the respective pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the Applicant is workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No. 1? 2. If so, to what relief the Applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite parties?" 9. In support of the claim of respondent No. 1, he has examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined one Dr. L. Ramulu as P.W. 2 and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked. On behalf of the appellant, it has examined one Mr. D. Padma Rao, Senior Assistant, as R.W. I and got Exs. B1 and B2 marked. 10. In his award, the Commissioner has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2, Ex. A3-injury Certificate and Ex. A5-Disability Certificate. 11. Before undertaking further discussion, it is to be noted that the Commissioner has not framed an issue on the liability of the appellant with reference to the policy obtained by respondent No. 2. 12. Be that as it may the evidence on record is sufficient for this Court to decide the said issue which was specifically raised in the counter affidavit and also in the present appeal by the appellant. 13. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: (1) Whether determination of compensation by the Commissioner is proper and correct? (2) Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation under the insurance policy and relevant statutory enactments? and (3) Whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to enhancement of compensation? Re Point No. 1 14. As noted hereinbefore, it is the pleaded case of respondent No. 1 that due to the accident involving tractor and trailor on which he was travelling, he has suffered fracture of both bones of right hand, multiple fracture of right hip, fracture of both bones of left leg, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs and multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body. In support of the plea of injuries, he has filed Ex. A3-injury certificate and Ex. A5-disability certificate. He has examined the Orthopaedic Surgeon, who has issued Ex. A5, as P.W. 2. 15. In Ex. A3 issued by the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Yellareddy, the injuries suffered by respondent No. 1 are described as under: “1. Blunt Simple Over the Rt. forearm 2 x 1 cm Contusion 2. A3-injury certificate and Ex. A5-disability certificate. He has examined the Orthopaedic Surgeon, who has issued Ex. A5, as P.W. 2. 15. In Ex. A3 issued by the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Yellareddy, the injuries suffered by respondent No. 1 are described as under: “1. Blunt Simple Over the Rt. forearm 2 x 1 cm Contusion 2. Blunt Simple Over the Rt. hip 3 x 2 cm Contusion 3. Blunt Simple Over the left leg 3 x ½ cm Abrasion” 16. In Ex. A5, the disability certificate issued by P.W. 2, it is certified that due to the injuries to right forearm, left leg and right hip, the movements of these parts are restricted. P.W. 2 has assessed the disability at 40%. 17. In his chief examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that he has examined respondent No. 1 physically and clinically, and subjected him to exercise, that he has verified medical records and found that respondent No. 1 had post traumatic stiffness of right forearm, right hip and left leg, and painful and restricted movements of these parts and that he has assessed the disability at 40% partial permanent disability and loss of earning capacity at more than 40%. He has further stated that the injuries mentioned in Ex. A5 correspond to those mentioned in Ex. A4 (sic 'Ex. A3, injury certificate'). He has also opined that respondent No. 1, cannot do labour work in view of the disabilities mentioned by him in Ex. A5. 18. In his cross examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that he has not treated respondent No. 1, that respondent No. 1 has come to him only for the purpose of issue of disability certificate, that there is Medical Board at Govt. Hq Hospital, Nizamabad and that he has issued Ex. A5 in his private capacity as an Orthopaedic Surgeon. He has also deposed that as per Ex. A3, injury certificate, respondent No. 1 has sustained only simply injuries. He denied the suggestion that there is no corroboration between the injuries mentioned in Ex. A3 and those mentioned in Ex. A5. He further deposed that he has not obtained any X-ray at the time of issuing Ex. A5. He has denied the suggestion that he has not examined respondent No. 1 clinically and physically and that he has not verified the medical records of respondent No. 1 while issuing Ex. A5. A3 and those mentioned in Ex. A5. He further deposed that he has not obtained any X-ray at the time of issuing Ex. A5. He has denied the suggestion that he has not examined respondent No. 1 clinically and physically and that he has not verified the medical records of respondent No. 1 while issuing Ex. A5. He has also denied the suggestion that he has issued false disability certificate. 19. It needs to be seen that Ex. A3, injury certificate, was filed by respondent No. 1 himself. This certificate described all the injuries as simple in nature, as two of them contusions and the third one is only an abrasion, P.W. 2 in his evidence far from disputing the contents of Ex. A3 issued by the Deputy Civil Surgeon has in fact sworn by it. While Ex. A3 was issued immediately after the accident on 19.01.1998, Ex. A5, disability certificate, was issued on 10.11.2002, nearly five years after the accident. Interestingly, P.W. 2 has admitted that he has not even taken X-ray of respondent No. 1 before issuing Ex. A5, disability certificate. Though he has denied the suggestion that there is no correlation between Ex. A3 and Ex. A5, the extreme variation in the nature and description of the injuries between Ex. A3 and Ex. A5 is striking even for a layman. When Ex. A3 produced by respondent No. 1 himself clearly described the injuries as simple in nature, the burden heavily lies on respondent No. 1 to prove that he has received grievous injuries. It is incomprehensible that simple injuries received by respondent No. 1 in the year 1998 could mature into grievous injuries by the time P.W. 2 has examined respondent No. 2 on 10.11.2002. The falsity of Ex. A5 is thoroughly exposed by Ex. A3. 20. From the discussion undertaken above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that P.W. 2 has issued Ex. A5, a Blatantly false certificate which comes into serious conflict with Ex. A3 injury certificate. The evidence of such a witness can have no credibility at all. Evidence of witnesses like P.W. 2 pollutes the stream of justice and causes havoc in the accident cases. It is time that such witnesses shall be barred from giving evidence. 21. On the analysis as above, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has committed a serious error in relying upon Ex. Evidence of witnesses like P.W. 2 pollutes the stream of justice and causes havoc in the accident cases. It is time that such witnesses shall be barred from giving evidence. 21. On the analysis as above, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has committed a serious error in relying upon Ex. A5 and the evidence of P.W. 2 on the nature of injuries. Having regard to Ex. A3, which proves that the injuries are simple in nature, the question of respondent No. 1 suffering permanent partial disability does not arise and consequently, there can be no question of loss of earnings at 40%. At the most, respondent No. 1 would have been disabled from attending to his day-to-day works for a period of two weeks. 22. Having regard to the fact that respondent No. 1 would have undergone pain and suffering due to the injuries that are simple in nature, he would have lost his wages for about two weeks. Therefore, I feel that he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. 23. This point is answered accordingly. Re point No. 2: 24. The appellant in the counter affidavit has specifically averred that the tractor and trailor were insured for agricultural use only. Ex. B1 is the insurance policy, wherein it is clearly mentioned against the column "LIMITATIONS AS TO USE" as "Agriculture use only". While giving break up of the sum of Rs. 372/-, the policy mentioned a sum of Rs. 120/- towards the liability of tractor; Rs. 87/- towards the liability of trailor, Rs. 150/- towards unlimited property damage (ULPD) and Rs. 15/- towards LL to driver. 25. Under Section 147(1) of the Motor- Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') the risk of the driver of any vehicle, the conductor of a public service vehicle or the person examining the tickets of such vehicle and a person being carried in goods carriage vehicle are alone covered. 26. Admittedly, the insurance policy permitted the tractor and trailor to be used only for agricultural purpose. Therefore, no person other than driver is covered under the Act liability. If the tractor was used for loading and unloading of any goods other than the agricultural product, the said use is contrary to the policy itself. Moreover, the labourers are not covered by Ex. Therefore, no person other than driver is covered under the Act liability. If the tractor was used for loading and unloading of any goods other than the agricultural product, the said use is contrary to the policy itself. Moreover, the labourers are not covered by Ex. B1, insurance policy, issued by the appellant as no separate premium has been paid for such labourers. The appellant is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation awarded by the Commissioner in favour of respondent No. 1. The Commissioner has committed a serious error in not dealing with this aspect and proceeding on a completely erroneous premise that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 27. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant. Re Point No. 3: 28. In the light of the findings on point No. 1, it is held that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to enhancement of compensation. Conclusion: 29. Based on the discussion undertaken on point Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5.000/- as compensation and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. 30. It is represented that the appellant has deposited the entire compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner, out of which, respondent No. 1 was permitted to withdraw 50%. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the remaining 50% amount lying with the Commissioner. 31. C.M.A. No. 483 of 2005 is accordingly allowed and C.M.A. No. 1626 of 2004 is dismissed. 32. Before closing the cases, I deem it necessary to deal with the conduct of P.W. 2 (Dr. L. Ramulu). 33. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad v. Imtiaz Ahmed and another, 2005(1) ALT 637 has held that P.W. 2 is in the habit of giving false medical certificates and directed that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioners of Labour shall not act upon his certificates and oral evidence. 34. In L. Ramulu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil] Nos. 14540-14541 of 2005 dated 13.10.2006 the Supreme Court has however expunged the observations made by this Court in the said judgment relating to P.W. 2 as the aggrieved party was not heard before condemning him. The Supreme Court left the aggrieved persons free to move appropriate authority for taking action against Dr. L. Ramulu. 14540-14541 of 2005 dated 13.10.2006 the Supreme Court has however expunged the observations made by this Court in the said judgment relating to P.W. 2 as the aggrieved party was not heard before condemning him. The Supreme Court left the aggrieved persons free to move appropriate authority for taking action against Dr. L. Ramulu. During the hearing, the Court is informed that no one had so far approached the competent authority to take action against Dr. L. Ramulu. Indeed, this Court over a period of time noticed that this particular witness has been issuing injury certificates and disability certificates lock, stock and barrel and deposing on behalf of the claimants in many motor accident claims cases and the claims arising under the Employees' Compensation Act. 1923. 35. The Medical Council of India. New Delhi is therefore directed to examine the conduct of Dr. L. Ramulu with reference to Ex. A3 and Ex. AS and also hold an enquiry into the number of cases in which Dr. L. Ramulu has figured as witness deposing in favour of the claimants. On such enquiry, if it is found that Dr. L. Ramulu is guilty of professional misconduct, the Medical Council of India shall inflict appropriate penalties on him under the Medical Council Act, 1956 after proper enquiry and affording an opportunity to him. 36. As a sequel to disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeals, all the pending interlocutory applications in these cases shall stand disposed of as infructuous.