JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali ma kindly be modified as prayed for and the claim petition of the claimant - appellant be ordered to be allowed as a whole and interest be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the claim petition. " 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the permanent disability, as per the disability certificate, has to be computed as 27.5%. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after taking the disability, the guidelines issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, may be applied. 4. Counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of Pitambar Das Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2493/2011), decided on 20.9.2018, relevant portion of which reads as follows :- "20. Upon construing the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Raj Kumar (supra), in my view, logically a disability certificate of an expert doctor has to yield before the certificate given by duly constituted medical board. However, it is also very much desirable that a disability certificate issued by a qualified medical practitioner should not be completely ignored or discarded. True it is that author of the certificate has not appeared in the witness box to prove its contents and the certificate is a zerox copy but it is not the case of respondents that same is spurious. Therefore, taking a benevolent view in the matter and by applying criteria for adjudging total permanent disability/total partial disability with the aid of Act of 1923, I feel inclined to place selective reliance on it for doing substantial justice in the matter. In the backdrop of available materials, which are MRI and MLC reports of the appellant (Exs.174&175) and other umpteen number of documents, coupled with his unimpeached testimony to the extent of injuries suffered, with objectivity, I deem it just and appropriate to adjudge his 50% permanent partial disability. In the backdrop of available materials, which are MRI and MLC reports of the appellant (Exs.174&175) and other umpteen number of documents, coupled with his unimpeached testimony to the extent of injuries suffered, with objectivity, I deem it just and appropriate to adjudge his 50% permanent partial disability. This assessment is also otherwise satisfying the requirements of schedule appended to the Act of 1923 inasmuch as none of the injuries of the appellant are satisfying the requirements of Schedule I, Part I & II of the said Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the medical certificate has not been properly issued by the Medical Board and is merely written on a piece of prescription by the Doctor in his private capacity. It is also contended that the injury is only a particular fracture in the lower limb, and thus, the compensation awarded by learned court below is sufficient. 6. Though, learned counsel for the respondent had raised the issue of the disability being only in one leg, but learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out the law that the disability caused in one leg can have lesser meaning than the total disability. 6. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on page no.4 of the impugned judgment, while deciding the issue no.1, the learned court below has taken the deposition of AD-1 Doctor Gajanand Yadav, who had issued the certificate of disability and has categorically deposed that the permanent disability in question is to the extent of 27.5%. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out from the certified copy of the statement rendered by Dr. Gajanand Yadav that he was Senior Specialist (Orthopedician) and Principal Medical Officer Bangur Hospital Pali , and therefore, he was a competent person to assess the disability in question. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once the proper certificate is not there, the court has to be very cautious in taking into account the disability assessed in private capacity. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once the proper certificate is not there, the court has to be very cautious in taking into account the disability assessed in private capacity. However, in this particular case, the disability certificate has been issued by Senior Specialist and Principal Medical Officer Bangur Hospital Pali, and that too Specialist Orthopedician, and therefore, once such doctor was available for giving his statement before the learned court below, then the conclusion arrived at by the learned court below to believe the disability to be 27.5% has to be accepted. 5. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the parties were directed to jointly submit the calculation afresh as per the revised guidelines for settlement in MACT cases as issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 05.11.2018, which they have furnished before this Court and the same reads as follows:- Age of the Injured 36 years Simple Injury (1) (2500X1) 2500 Permanent Disability (27.5%) [25,000+(27.5X5000)] 1,62,500 Hospitalisation (1100X13) 14,300 Loss of Income 2,990 Expenditure of attendant 5,000 Total 1,87,290 Pain & Sufferings 20% of 1,87,290/- 37,458 Medical Expenses 800 Total Compensation 2,25,548 Compensation awarded by Tribunal 60,000 Enhanced Compensation. 1,65,548 6. As per the revised guidelines for settlement in MACT cases as issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 05.11.2018, the enhanced award of Rs.1,65,548/- is granted which shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made. 7. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.