JUDGMENT : J. NISHA BANU, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the minor claimant as against the award passed in MCOP No. 261 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tirunelveli. It is a case of injury caused due to accident that took place on 12.7.2006 at 6.30 p.m. on Kalakkadu-Cheranmahadevi Road. The driver of a lorry bearing registration No. TN 57-H 7583 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor claimant, who was walking on the said road. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The said accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, which is insured with the respondent No. 2 insurance company. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition in MCOP No. 261 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tirunelveli, seeking compensation. 3. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined three witnesses as PWs. 1 to 3 and Exhs. P1 to P12 were marked. On the other hand, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent No. 2. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the insurance company and also on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Leyland lorry, which is insured with the respondent No. 2 insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000 as compensation, against which the appellant-claimant has filed this present appeal on various grounds seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the medical bills given by the Siddha doctor. The court below ought to have seen only whether the treatment taken by the injured is genuine or not. However, in the case on hand, without assigning any valid reason, the Tribunal has abruptly rejected the claim of the injured and hence, he prays for appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, the insurance company would submit that the court below has rightly rejected the medical bills given by the Siddha doctor, which need not be interfered with by this court. 7. 6. Per contra, the insurance company would submit that the court below has rightly rejected the medical bills given by the Siddha doctor, which need not be interfered with by this court. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The points to be considered in this appeal go thus: (a) Whether the rejection on the part of the court below in granting compensation towards permanent disability to the claimant on the ground that he was not treated by PW3 and by disbelieving the version of PW3 in giving permanent disability certificate to the claimant which is marked as Exh. P11 is correct? (b) Whether the claimant is entitled for the medical bills given by the Siddha doctor? 8.1 As far as the first point is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the accident that had taken place. The only ground on which the court below had rejected the claim of the claimant was that the doctor, who had given the permanent disability certificate and was examined as PW 3, had not treated the claimant. It is error on the part of the court below for the simple reason that the doctor who had examined the claimant is an orthopaedician, who is the fittest person to say about the disability. If the logic of the court below is to be applied, sometimes, the doctor who treated the patient dies in case of accident or some unnatural circumstances, then nobody can claim compensation. In such type of matters, the court should not adopt hyper-technical approach rather it has to adopt general approach to the extent that whether the claim is genuine or not. In the case on hand, rightly, the orthopaedic doctor had given permanent disability certificate. One can understand if the certificate is obtained from a cardiologist, who may not be in a position to state about the disability. Therefore, I answer the first point in favour of the claimant to the extent that the certificate issued by PW 3 holds good. In the case on hand, rightly, the orthopaedic doctor had given permanent disability certificate. One can understand if the certificate is obtained from a cardiologist, who may not be in a position to state about the disability. Therefore, I answer the first point in favour of the claimant to the extent that the certificate issued by PW 3 holds good. To arrive at such conclusion, I garner support from the judgment of this court in S. Venkatachalam v. V.B. Abdul Ajees, 2010 (2) TLNJ 169 (Civil), wherein this court has categorically held in para 7 that merely because the doctor who treated the claimant when he was admitted in the hospital was not examined does not mean the claimant cannot prove the disability through another medical expert. As long as the evidence of the doctor is believable, the evidence cannot be rejected on the ground as adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, as earlier pointed out by this court, the disability certificate issued by PW 3 can be considered. 9. Coming to the second question of law, it is apt to mention section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, in which the relevant portion is extracted below: "(17) xxx xxx xxx (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any request or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to Indian Medicine." 10. From the above section, it is clear that a Siddha doctor is empowered to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate. The said section further empowers that they can depose evidence before the court. When the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 itself gives such recognition to the Siddha doctor, there is no logic in rejecting the medical bills submitted by the claimant by the court below on the ground that the treatment was taken through Siddha medicine by the injured. From time immemorial, Siddha treatment has been prevalent in all parts of our country and now-a-days, perhaps in the world too. Our ancestors are the forefront of unani, siddha, ayurvedic, etc. From time immemorial, Siddha treatment has been prevalent in all parts of our country and now-a-days, perhaps in the world too. Our ancestors are the forefront of unani, siddha, ayurvedic, etc. Natural medicines are considered to be the best form of treatment in curing many diseases. Of course, due to escalation of prices, poor people are unable to afford to take treatment through allopathy and for some people, they prefer to take treatment other than allopathy. Needless to mention that before the advent of allopathy, Siddha played a vital role in curing innumerable diseases in every nook and corner. It may not be out of place to mention that the father of surgery Susrutha would have used only natural medicines in those days before the advent of allopathic medicines available at present. Once the Government of India recognises and opens various colleges and universities for establishing Siddha, unani, ayurvedic, it goes without saying that because of its importance the government encourages such course for the benefit of our people. In such a situation, the yardstick applied that the medical bills of a person who takes treatment in allopathy alone shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at compensation is illusive and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, this court wants to place on record an important fact that for diseases like Chikungunya and Dengue, Nilavembu medicine from Siddha is the best medicine to cure the disease. This has been adopted by the Government of India too. Therefore, I answer that a person who takes treatment in Siddha is also eligible to get compensation provided that the said siddha, unani and ayurvedic doctor has to be duly recognised by the government. If they are recognised by the Government of India, their bills also are valid for claiming compensation. Consequently, the rejection of medical bills on the ground that the injured had taken treatment from the Siddha doctor is set aside and this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. Apart from the said fact, as per the direction issued by this court on 13.7.2017, the injured-claimant appeared before this court. His leg was examined by this court. It is seen that due to his poverty, he was not able to continue his treatment in the private hospital and taken treatment in the Siddha hospital and the said injury is seen by this court itself. His leg was examined by this court. It is seen that due to his poverty, he was not able to continue his treatment in the private hospital and taken treatment in the Siddha hospital and the said injury is seen by this court itself. Therefore, I am convinced that the injured has got the grievous hurt in the accident. It cannot be said that a person has to take treatment only in a particular hospital and a particular method of treatment. It is for the injured to take decision for taking treatment in the interest of his health. 12. Though the claimant has produced medical bills, which is marked as Exh. P8, the Tribunal has observed in para 15 that Exh. P8 was issued by Siddha doctor and, therefore, it is not acceptable cannot be accepted and the said finding is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the case on hand, though the Siddha doctor was examined, unfortunately, his evidence was negated by the respondent No. 3. As earlier observed, armed with the provisions available under the Medical Council of India, when the Siddha doctor treated the patient, the court below ought not to have rejected the evidence of the Siddha doctor, in other words, the court below should not have rejected the medical bills submitted by the claimant. Therefore, the treatment given by the unani, siddha, ayurvedic doctor is valid and bills given by him are also valid for the purpose of claiming compensation provided that the said doctor has to be duly recognised by the Indian Medical Council. 13. In the light of the above discussion and since the claimant had undergone treatment from various doctors, such as Siddha doctor, government hospital as well as a private hospital at Valliyoor from 27.3.2007 to 5.4.2007, which is evident from C8, a sum of Rs. 38,000 is granted for medical expenses, as claimed by the claimant. Further, the claimant has taken treatment for a month, however, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 for extra nourishment. Therefore, it is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. The doctor-orthopaedician (PW 3) has categorically stated that the claimant sustained 60 per cent permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards this head. In the light of the settled position of law and as per the judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. 1,000 for extra nourishment. Therefore, it is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. The doctor-orthopaedician (PW 3) has categorically stated that the claimant sustained 60 per cent permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards this head. In the light of the settled position of law and as per the judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Ramesh, 2013 (2) TN MAC 583 and following the judgment of this court reported in 2010 (2) TLNJ 169 (Civil), this court fixes a sum of Rs. 3,000 for one per cent permanent disability and awards a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000 towards permanent disability. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards attendant charges, which is very meagre because the claimant was under treatment for one month and, therefore, it is enhanced to Rs. 5,000. Further, though the court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 only for pain and suffering, however, when this court called upon the claimant, it is seen that the injury is grievous in nature and his right leg has been badly damaged and, therefore, this court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards pain and suffering. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5 per cent per annum is confirmed. 14. In view of the above discussions and observations, this court modifies the award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation, as under: Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this court Awarded confirmed or enhanced or granted (1) Permanent disability - Rs.1,80,000 enhanced (2) Medical expenses - Rs.38,000 granted (3) Nutrition Rs.1,000 Rs.10,000 enhanced (4) Attendant charge Rs.1,000 Rs.5,000 enhanced (5) Transportation charges Rs.1,000 Rs.1,000 confirmed (6) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000 Rs. 50,000 enhanced Total Rs.13,000 Rs.2,84,000 By enhancing a sum of Rs.2,71,000 15. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, enhancing the award of the Tribunal from Rs. 13,000 to a sum of Rs. 2,84,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 16. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, enhancing the award of the Tribunal from Rs. 13,000 to a sum of Rs. 2,84,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 16. The respondent No. 2 insurance company is directed to deposit the entire enhanced award amount along with accrued interest and costs, less the amount deposited, if any, to the credit of MCOP No. 261 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tirunelveli, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; On compliance of payment of additional court-fees, if any, by the claimant, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the entire award amount, namely, Rs. 2,71,000 along with accrued interest and costs directly to the personal savings bank account number of the appellant-claimant, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting his account details, within a period of 2 weeks, thereafter; and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.