JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Singh, J.—Present appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No. 109 of 2003 (Dasrath v. Alok Kumar Dubey and others) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the appellant claimant inter alia on the ground that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and also that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation as contemplated in law. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.2.2003 while appellant claimant was going to the hospital met with an accident at about 11.30 AM near Primary Health Center, Manjhanpur by a motor vehicle Vikram bearing registration No. U.P. 73 Q-0157. The said accident had occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the said vehicle. Respondent No. 1 is the registered owner of the said vehicle. At the time of accident his vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. In the said accident appellant claimant has sustained grievous injuries (compound fracture in left leg below knee joint) causing permanent disability. At the time of accident appellant claimant was doing the work of mason and earned Rs. 3000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the said accident he has become permanently handicapped and his occupation also become affected. While awarding the compensation the Tribunal has not considered properly the loss of earnings and needs of future of the appellant claimant. FIR of the said accident was lodged at police station Manjhanpur against the driver of the said offending vehicle. After investigation in the case police has submitted the charge-sheet No. 32 of 2003 under Sections 279/338/427 IPC against the driver of the said offending vehicle. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, same is liable to be enhanced. 3. The proceedings were contested by the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurance company denying the allegations by filing written statement. It was also pleaded by the owner of the said vehicle that in any view of the matter since at the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 and the driver was having a valid driving license, the liability, if any, was on the insurance company. 4. It was also pleaded by the owner of the said vehicle that in any view of the matter since at the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 and the driver was having a valid driving license, the liability, if any, was on the insurance company. 4. To support the allegations made in the claim petition, the appellant claimant himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also produced Ram Yash as PW-2. The appellant claimant has also filed copy of FIR, site plan, charge-sheet, injury report, bill vouchers, cash memo, disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi, treatment papers and technical inspection report of the offending vehicle. 5. In support of the allegations made in the written statement the owner of the vehicle has filed copy of registration certificate, permit and insurance policy of the offending vehicle. He has also filed driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant has submitted that it is proved from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant claimant that at the time of accident he was doing the work of mason and earned Rs. 3000/- per month. Learned counsel further submitted that disability certificate of the appellant claimant issued by the Chief Medical Officer is a public document and same was not required to be proved by examining the doctor. While passing the impugned award Tribunal has not taken into account the disability certificate for awarding the compensation towards the loss of earnings for the simple reason that it was not proved. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal has committed grave error in not accepting the disability certificate without formal proof. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- for loss of income of the claimant appellant from the date of accident till the date of judgment which is very low and insufficient. Learned counsel further submitted that while awarding the compensation the Tribunal has not considered the appellant’s needs of future, inconvenience, discomfort, hardship, frustration, disappointment and mental stress in the life. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and, therefore, same is liable to be enhanced. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that while awarding the compensation the Tribunal has not considered the appellant’s needs of future, inconvenience, discomfort, hardship, frustration, disappointment and mental stress in the life. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and, therefore, same is liable to be enhanced. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and, therefore, does not warrant interference for enhancement of compensation as claimed by the appellant claimant. 9. We have carefully examined the facts of the case and material evidence on record in the light of rival legal contentions urged before us by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties. 10. In our opinion, it is proved from the oral and documentary evidence available on record that accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle. Appellant claimant in the said accident has sustained grievous injuries (compound fracture in left leg below knee joint) causing permanent disability and due to the injuries sustained he has become permanently disabled. It is also proved from the oral evidence adduced by the claimant appellant that at the time of accident he was doing the work of mason and earned Rs. 3000/- per month and due to permanent disability his occupation has been affected. Admittedly, at the time of accident the said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. In view of the above and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that claimant appellant is entitled to recover the compensation from the respondents. 11. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Amzad Khan and others, 2016(4) ADJ 312 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 has held as under; “19. The document is a public document and the contents of the same were not required to be proved in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. It may also be relevant to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pt. 19 and 20 has held as under; “19. The document is a public document and the contents of the same were not required to be proved in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. It may also be relevant to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, 1989 (III) SLVR-137, describing the necessity of calling the Doctor only when it is necessary by making following observation : “(17)........We also hope and trust that our law Courts will not summon a medical professional to give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even men in this profession are not made to wait and waste time unnecessarily and it is known that our law Courts always have respect for the men in the medical profession and they are called to give evidence when necessary and attempts are made so that they may not have to wait for long. We have no hesitation in saying that it is expected of the members of the legal profession which is the other honourable profession to honour the persons in the medical profession and see that they are not called to give evidence so long as it is not necessary.” 20. In view of the provisions of Section 77 of the Evidence Act providing that the contents of public documents need not be proved by calling witness and the observations of the Apex Court there was no necessity to prove the disability certificate by calling the Doctor, the document was admissible and the Tribunal committed no illegality in placing reliance upon the same.” 12. In view of the above, we are also of the view that disability certificate issued by the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi duly certified by the Medical Board constituted to examine the appellant claimant is a public document and there was no necessity to prove the same by calling the doctor. The said certificate is admissible in evidence without formal proof and the Tribunal has committed illegality in not placing reliance upon the same. Disability certificate of the appellant claimant dated 15.3.2005 is available on lower Court record and states that disability is of permanent nature to the extent of 60%. The said certificate is admissible in evidence without formal proof and the Tribunal has committed illegality in not placing reliance upon the same. Disability certificate of the appellant claimant dated 15.3.2005 is available on lower Court record and states that disability is of permanent nature to the extent of 60%. It is also evident from the evidence available on record that at the time of accident appellant claimant was doing the work of mason, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that this would be a case to treat the functional disability (loss of earning capacity) to be 60% for awarding the compensation towards the loss of earnings. 13. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and another, 2009 (3) AWC 2138 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 21 has held as follows; “We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 14. It is evident from the evidence available on record that at the time of accident the age of claimant appellant was 45 years and his income was Rs. 36,000/- per annum. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) we provide that multiplier of 14 should be applied for awarding the just and reasonable compensation towards the loss of earnings on account of permanent disability. 15. We have also considered the fact that rupee value has come down drastically and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced. 16. 15. We have also considered the fact that rupee value has come down drastically and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced. 16. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control India Private Limited, (1995) 1 Laws (SC) 109 and Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar, (2011) 11 Laws (SC) 6, the compensation payable to the appellant claimant is worked out as under: a. Income of the claimant appellant Rs. 3000/- per month Rs. 36,000/- per annum b. Multiplier applied as per Sarla Verma’s case with reference to the age of injured claimant 14 c. Compensation for loss of earnings on account of functional disability to the extent of 60% Rs. 36,000 x 14 = Rs. 5,04,000/- its 60% is Rs. 3,24,000/- d. Compensation for attendant transportation, nourishing foods and medical expanses already incurred Rs. 60,000/- e. Compensation for future medical expanses Rs. 25,000/- f. Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries Rs. 10,000/- g. Compensation for loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- h. Compensation for loss of expectations of life (shortening of normal longevity) Rs. 10,000/- i. Total amount of compensation Rs. 4,17,400/- j. Amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,35,000/- k. Amount enhanced by this Court Rs. 4,17,400 - Rs. 1,35,000 = Rs. 2,82,400/- 17. Present appeal is allowed, accordingly, by modifying the impugned judgment and award by increasing the compensation awarded from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 4,17,400/-, as such, the appellant claimant will be entitled to enhanced amount of award Rs. 2,82,400/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant appellant alongwith interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the form of account payee cheque. 18. To secure the enhanced amount it is deemed appropriate that upon deposit it shall be converted into an FDR initially for a period of three years with automatic renewals and appellant claimant would be entitled to the monthly interest accruing thereon. 18. To secure the enhanced amount it is deemed appropriate that upon deposit it shall be converted into an FDR initially for a period of three years with automatic renewals and appellant claimant would be entitled to the monthly interest accruing thereon. It is also made clear that if appellant claimant is in need of any amount of money, then upon filing of an application before the Tribunal, the money claimed should be released by the Tribunal provided it is shown that it is for a just cause. 19. There would be no order as to costs.