JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Banerjee, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Tekade, learned counsel for respondent no.3. None appears for respondent no.2, though duly served on final disposal. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 and also in terms of the order passed by this Court on 29/08/2017. 4. Perused the paper book of the appeal, privately prepared by the appellant and placed on record of this appeal, with the permission of this Court. Now following points arise for my determination: "(i) Whether unexplained delay occurred in filing of the F.I.R. by the respondent no.1, has proved to be fatal to the case of the respondent no.1 regarding occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?" 5. On 08/03/2012, at about 4:30 p.m., when the respondent no.1 was proceeding from Pulgaon to village Nachangaon on his motorcycle, he came across one Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration no. MH32/C6593 (offending vehicle), which was, in the opinion of the respondent no.1, being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Soon thereafter, the offending vehicle collided head on, with the motorcycle driven by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Initially he was taken to Kasturba Hospital for immediate treatment and thereafter he was shifted to other hospital. The left arm of the respondent no.1 sustained fracture and in order to set right the fracture, the respondent no.1 was required to be operated upon for insertion of steel rod. The operation was carried out by Dr. Ajit Phadke. About five months thereafter, the respondent no.1 was again examined by Dr. Ajit Phadke and as it was apprehended by that time that the respondent no.1 may not recover fully from the injuries of his left arm, on examination, the Doctor opined that the respondent no.1 sustained permanent disability of his left arm to the extent of 34%. The respondent no.1 by that time had also incurred substantial expenditure for treatment of his injuries. 6. In order to get his loss indemnified, which he suffered in the accident, respondent no.1 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent no.1 by that time had also incurred substantial expenditure for treatment of his injuries. 6. In order to get his loss indemnified, which he suffered in the accident, respondent no.1 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was resisted by the respondent nos.2 and 3, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who filed the common written statement. They, however, did not deny the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. They also admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The appellant too denied the claim of respondent no.1 by filing a separate written statement. 7. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides and arguments of the contesting parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, in which the respondent no.1 sustained permanent disability to the extent of 34%. But, the Tribunal also found that the suffering of 34% of the permanent disability by the respondent no.1, did not equally reduce his earning capacity and by resorting to some guess work, the Tribunal further found that reduction of earning capacity was only to the extent of 20%. Accordingly, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till actual realization, to the respondent no.1 and it was made payable jointly and severally by the appellant and the respondent nos.2 and 3, by the impugned award passed on 17/02/2017. This appeal is preferred against this award by the appellant, not being satisfied with the findings so recorded by the Tribunal. 8. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there has been an unexplained delay in filing of the F.I.R., which was filed about 21 days after the occurrence of the accident. He submits that while the accident occurred on 08/03/2012 at 4:30 p.m., F.I.R. was filed by the respondent no.1 on 29/03/2012 and that too, without giving any explanation for belated filing of the F.I.R. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, differs. He submits that while the accident occurred on 08/03/2012 at 4:30 p.m., F.I.R. was filed by the respondent no.1 on 29/03/2012 and that too, without giving any explanation for belated filing of the F.I.R. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, differs. She submits that if one looks at the evidence available on record, one would find that the assertions made by the respondent no.1 in this regard, have not been disputed by the insurance company, which is appellant herein. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 is also of the same opinion. 9. Upon going through the evidence available on record, particularly that of the claimant i.e. PW1 Gautam (respondent no.1), one would find that assertion made by him that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by it's driver (respondent no.3), has not been disputed by the appellant. There is not a single suggestion of denial given to PW1 Gautam during the course of his cross-examination taken on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, respondent nos.2 and 3, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, after having filed their written statement in the petition, the defence that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.3, was not available to the insurance company i.e. appellant. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly found that the accident occurred only due to rashness and negligence shown by the respondent no.3 in driving the offending vehicle and that was the cause for sustaining of grievous injuries by the respondent no.1. So, belated filing of the F.I.R. in this case, has not been proved fatal to the case of the respondent no.1. The point no.1 is accordingly answered in the negative. 10. Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the appellant, further submits that even though the respondent no.1 had approached the committee constituted at Wardha General Hospital for examination of the patients, claiming to be suffering with permanent disability and for issuing disability certificate, the certificate, if any, issued by such committee showing suffering of permanent disablement of respondent no.1 was not produced by him. He also submits that, on the contrary, there is a clear cut admission given by the respondent no.1 that this committee of Wardha General Hospital refused to issue permanent disability certificate to respondent no.1. He also submits that, on the contrary, there is a clear cut admission given by the respondent no.1 that this committee of Wardha General Hospital refused to issue permanent disability certificate to respondent no.1. Thus, he submits that, the certificate issued by PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, allegedly showing suffering of 34% permanent disability, cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 submit that even though the committee at Wardha General Hospital refused to issue permanent disability certificate, the permanent disability certificate was indeed issued by the doctor, who treated the respondent no.1 and unless and until it is shown that the certificate issued by the treating doctor is not founded upon the medical evidence, such certificate cannot be discarded from consideration by the Court. 11. It is true that PW1 Gautam, in his cross-examination taken on behalf of the appellant, has admitted that though he had asked for issuance of permanent disability certificate from the committee constituted at Wardha General Hospital, it was not issued to him. But, we have before us a permanent disability certificate issued by Dr. Ajit Phadke, who is the second witness of the respondent no.1 in the present case. Now, the question would be just because competent committee at Wardha General Hospital refused to issue permanent disability certificate to the respondent no.1, could it be said that the permanent disability certificate (Exh.85) issued by PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, is not genuine or is based upon no medical evidence, and I think answer would have to be given as in the negative. The reason being that, PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, without any dispute, was a doctor who actually treated the respondent no.1 for the injuries that he suffered in the nature of fracture to the left arm. Admittedly, none of the doctors on the committee of Wardha General Hospital had any opportunity to treat respondent no.1 for his such injuries at any point of time. Of course, that committee had clinically examined the respondent no.1 as is seen from the evidence of PW1 Gautam. But that committee, it is further seen from the evidence of PW1 Gautam, refused to take radiological report of the respondent no.1 by making him undergo the x-ray examination. 12. Of course, that committee had clinically examined the respondent no.1 as is seen from the evidence of PW1 Gautam. But that committee, it is further seen from the evidence of PW1 Gautam, refused to take radiological report of the respondent no.1 by making him undergo the x-ray examination. 12. The reason for refusal of the constituted committee at Wardha General Hospital, to take radiological report has not appeared in the evidence of PW1 Gautam, though there may be a reason for it. The admissions regarding clinical examination of respondent no.1 by Wardha General Hospital committee and its refusal to issue certificate appear in the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 taken on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, if further question had been put to him in order to elicit the reason for not issuing the permanent disability certificate by Wardha General Hospital committee, perhaps some useful material for appreciating the impact of these admissions would have surfaced. But, no further questions were put to respondent no.1. The respondent no.1, it appears, also did not voluntarily give any reasons for non-issuance of permanent disability certificate by the constituted committee at Wardha General Hospital and that may be because of his inexperience in appearing before the courts and tendering the evidence. Therefore, only because respondent no.1 has not clarified by giving any explanation regarding non-issuance of permanent disability certificate by Wardha General Hospital committee, it would not mean that the only reason for such none-issuance was that respondent no.1 was not suffering from any permanent disability. There could be several other reasons and unless and until existence of those other reasons is not ruled out, no inference can be drawn that the non-issuance of certificate by the committee was because respondent no.1 had no permanent disability and as such no significance to these admissions could be given. It would then follow that evidence of PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, on the point of permanent disability of respondent no.1 cannot be discarded, rather, requires consideration, he being the treating doctor. 13. Now, if one considers the evidence of PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, one would found that no doubt about the issuance of the disability certificate has been expressed in his cross-examination taken on behalf of the appellant. What has been suggested to him is that the disability certificate was issued by him without consideration of the requisite parameters. 13. Now, if one considers the evidence of PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke, one would found that no doubt about the issuance of the disability certificate has been expressed in his cross-examination taken on behalf of the appellant. What has been suggested to him is that the disability certificate was issued by him without consideration of the requisite parameters. It has been suggested to him that the mentioning of those parameters, which relate to muscular end feel, ligament end feel and bone end feel, is essential in the permanent disability certificate, which suggestions have been clearly denied by him. Then, PW1 Gautam i.e. respondent no.1 himself in his evidence, has stated that because of the grievous injuries suffered by him in this accident, he developed a permanent disability which made it impossible for him to perform heavy tasks. This assertion of PW1 Gautam has not been disputed in any manner by the appellant, if one takes a hard look at his crossexamination taken on behalf of the appellant. The cumulative effect of evidence of PW2 Dr. Ajit Phadke and the evidence of PW1 Gautam, would be that the respondent no.1 succeeded in proving his case that in the present accident he suffered a permanent disability of his left arm and it is to the extent of 34 %. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, in this regard, cannot be faulted with. 14. The next question would be, whether the permanent disability of 34 % could also be equally linked to the loss of earning capacity in the present case or not. According to the Tribunal, it cannot be equally linked and there has to be a practical view taken of the whole issue. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the loss of earning capacity was only to the extent of 20 % and this has been determined by the Tribunal by doing some guess work. I could not find any reference point for making such guess work by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, what is more important now is the fact that such reduction in the percentage of the loss of earning capacity has not been challenged by the respondent no.1. That apart, on a closer scrutiny of evidence, I am able to discover a faint hint in this regard. It is about the ability of respondent no.1 to perform at least some of the tasks by using his left arm. That apart, on a closer scrutiny of evidence, I am able to discover a faint hint in this regard. It is about the ability of respondent no.1 to perform at least some of the tasks by using his left arm. If this is the case, one may as well say, the reduction in earning capacity here is not coextensive with percentage of permanent disability and the reduction in earning capacity could be about half of the percentage of disability, which by rounding off exercise, would come to 20%. I think these could be reasons enough for us to uphold the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that so far as loss of earning capacity is concerned, it is only to the extent of 20%. Once this is done, I do not think that the calculations carried out by the Tribunal in determining the final amount of compensation, payable to the respondent no.1, could be found to be erroneous. 15. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the final amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent no.1, is just and proper. There is no scope for making interference in the impugned award. Second point is answered in the affirmative. 16. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal. It deserves to be dismissed. 17. Appeal stands dismissed. 18. Parties to bear their own costs.