JUDGMENT : HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment and/or award dated September 6, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court Suri, District Birbhum in MAC Case No. 301 of 2011. 2. The claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The case made out in the claim application is that on 3rd May, 2011 at about 5:45 PM when the claimant was returning home from his office after completion of his duty through PanagrahMoregram High Way on his bicycle, two trucks bearing Registration No. WB- 53A/5322 and WB 65/9511 approaching from the opposite direction with high speed, rashly and negligently met with a head on collision and dashed the claimant and as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was thereafter taken to Suri Sadar Hospital for treatment and subsequently was shifted to the Mission Hospital, Duragapur where he was treated from 3rd May, 2011 to 5th June 2011 and again from 10th September, 2011 to 21st September, 2011. It is the further case of the claimant that due to the said accident the claimant is totally unfit for doing any work and he has become permanently disabled. Since the claimant sustained severe injuries on different parts of the body and particularly on his thigh and legs for which he has suffered 75% permanent disablement, he cannot move without the help of crutch. The claimant received all his arrear wages and retiremental benefits from his employer and as such he did not claim any amount on account of loss of earning. The claimant claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending truck No. WB 65/9511. 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. obtained leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the case on merit besides the defence available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 (2) (a) of the Motor vehicles Act and contested the said Motor Accident Claim case by filing a written objection denying the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck No. WB 65/9511. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the Motor Accident Claim case and as such the said Motor Accident claim case proceeded ex parte against him. 5. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the Motor Accident Claim case and as such the said Motor Accident claim case proceeded ex parte against him. 5. The Learned Judge by a judgment and/or award dated September 6, 2016 passed an award of Rs. 13,12,524/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum there on from the date of filing of the case till realization. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the claimant was given liberty to realize the awarded amount with interest from the Insurance company by initiating appropriate execution proceeding. 6. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal. Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company challenges the impugned judgment and/or award on the following grounds: (I) The learned Tribunal erred in not directing the claimant to implead the owner and insurer of vehicle No. WB 53A/5322 to enable the appellant Insurance Company to recover the amount which the appellant Insurance Company would be liable to pay in excess of its liability in the instant case, since it is a case of composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. (II) The learned Tribunal erred in law by accepting the disablement to the extent of 75% as the disablement certificate was not duly proved by calling the Doctor issuing such certificate. (III) The learned Tribunal erred in law by allowing the claimant compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of loss of amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. 7. The claimant submitted the certified copy of the FIR along with written complaint, certified copy of Charge-sheet, Seizure List, as well as other documents which were marked as exhibits. The claimant further produced the Disability Certificate which was marked as “Exhibit-10”. 8. A Senior Executive of Durgapur Mission Hospital appeared as PW2 and produced the discharge summary which was marked as “Exhibit-13”. The final bills dated 5th June, 2011 and 21st June, 2011 in respect of the claimant were also produced by the said witness and the same were marked as Exhibit 14 and 15. 8. A Senior Executive of Durgapur Mission Hospital appeared as PW2 and produced the discharge summary which was marked as “Exhibit-13”. The final bills dated 5th June, 2011 and 21st June, 2011 in respect of the claimant were also produced by the said witness and the same were marked as Exhibit 14 and 15. The record keeper of Suri Sadar Hospital deposed as PW-3 and produced the attested copy of the Disability Register concerning the entry of the disability of the claimant. The Insurance Company did not challenge the Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority while cross-examining the witnesses who adduced evidence in support of the claim petition. Though the Insurance Company did not adduce any oral evidence but tendered the in-patient deposit details issued by Mission Hospital concerning payments of Rs. 5,77,586/- and 84,938/- by the claimant while cross-examining the PW2. As such the said inpatient deposit details showing payments of Rs. 5,77,586/- and 84,938/- were marked as Exhibit A and B. Thus, from the evidence adduced by the respective parties, it is evident that the claimant had to incur medical expenses of Rs. 5,77,586/- and 84,938/- while he was treated as indoor patient in the Mission Hospital Durgapur for the period from 3rd May, 2011 to 5th June 2011 and again from 10th September, 2011 to 21st September, 2011 respectively. Thus, the claimant is entitled to claim the said amount towards compensation. The claimants sustained grievous injuries resulting permanent disablement. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and also taking into consideration that the claimant has to incur some expenditure on account of his medical treatment during the post hospitalization period, the learned Judge of the court below allowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of post hospitalization treatment cost of the claimant. We feel that the learned Judge of the court below was perfectly justified by awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of post hospitalization treatment cost considering the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the claimant. 9. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the judgment reported at 2015 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC) (Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) held that there is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. 9. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the judgment reported at 2015 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC) (Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) held that there is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence, where as in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the out-come of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. In Paragraph 18 of the said reported case it has been held that in case of a composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or anyone of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. Paragraph 18 of the said reported case runs thus: 18. This Court in Challa Bharathamma & Nanjappan (supra) has dealt with the breach of policy conditions by the owner when the insurer was asked to pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal and the right to recover the same was given to the insurer in the executing court concerned if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination for the tribunal and the issue has been decided in favour of the insured. The same analogy can be applied to the instant cases as the liability of the joint tort feasor is joint and several. 10. In the instant case, there is determination of inter se liability of composite negligence to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the vehicle - trailor-truck which was not insured with the insurer, was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the insurer being insurer of the bus after making payment to claimant to recover from the owner of the trailor-truck the amount to the aforesaid extent in the execution proceedings. Thus, the vehicle - trailor-truck which was not insured with the insurer, was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the insurer being insurer of the bus after making payment to claimant to recover from the owner of the trailor-truck the amount to the aforesaid extent in the execution proceedings. Had there been no determination of the inter se liability for want of evidence or other joint tort feasor had not been impleaded, it was not open to settle such a dispute and to recover the amount in execution proceedings but the remedy would be to file another suit or appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows: (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award. 11. In view of the ratio decided in Khenyei (supra) we find no merit in the first submission of Mr. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award. 11. In view of the ratio decided in Khenyei (supra) we find no merit in the first submission of Mr. Das that the tribunal ought to have directed impleadment of the owner and insurer of the other vehicle to enable the appellant Insurance Company to recover the amount which the appellant company would be liable to pay in excess of its liability in the instant case. 12. Mr. Das submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the Disability Certificate as the said certificate has not been proved by the claimant by summoning the Doctor who issued such certificate. He further submitted that the claimant has miserably failed to prove the extent of permanent disablement. 13. The claimant produced the Disability Certificate issued by the Suri Sadar Hospital, Birbhum in order to prove that he sustained 75% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him. The said certificate was duly proved in evidence and was marked as ‘Exhibit-10’. The attested copy of the relevant page of the original disability register of Suri Sadar Hospital which contained the entry of the disability of the claimant was produced by the Record Keeper of the said Hospital who deposed as PW-3. The said attested copy was also duly proved in evidence and the same was marked as ‘Exhbit-16’. The Medical board of Suri Sadar Hospital, made an assessment of the extent of the permanent disability of the claimant and opined that the claimant sustained 75% permanent disability. No question by way of any suggession was put by the insurance Company while cross-examination of the claimants witnesses challenging the assessment made by the Medical Board. The Insurance Company also failed to adduce any evidence challenging the genuinity of the Disability Certificate and/or the assessment with regard to the extent of permanent disability made by the Medical Board of the Suri Sadar Hospital. The Disability Certificate as well as the attested copy of the relevant page of the original disability register was marked as exhibits without any objection being raised by the appellant Insurance Company at the time of trial. The Disability Certificate as well as the attested copy of the relevant page of the original disability register was marked as exhibits without any objection being raised by the appellant Insurance Company at the time of trial. As such it is not open to the appellant Insurance Company now to dispute the correctness of the Disability Certificate which was marked as an exhibit without objection. 14. Securing the presence of Doctors who treated a claimant for giving evidence may at times become very difficult for the claimant as most of the Doctors are reluctant to appear before the tribunals as because their entire day is likely to be wasted in attending the Tribunal to give evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported at (2011) 1 SCC 343 (Raj Kumar –vs.- Ajay Kumar and Another) held in paragraph 23 of the said judgement that in case where the certificates of Doctors are not contested by the opponents, they may be marked by consent there by dispensing with the oral evidence. 15. Paragraph 23 of the said judgement runs thus: 23. The Tribunals should realise that a busy surgeon may be able to save ten lives or perform twenty surgeries in the time he spends to attend the Tribunal to give evidence in one accident case. Many busy surgeons refuse to treat medico-legal cases out of apprehension that their practice and their current patients will suffer, if they have to spend their days in Tribunals giving evidence about past patients. The solution does not lie in coercing the Doctors to attend the Tribunal to give evidence. The solution lies in recognising the valuable time of Doctors and accommodating them. Firstly, efforts should be made to record the evidence of the treating Doctors on commission, after ascertaining their convenient timings. Secondly, if the Doctors attend the Tribunal for giving evidence, their evidence may be recorded without delay, ensuring that they are not required to wait. Thirdly, the Doctors may be given specific time for attending the Tribunal for giving evidence instead of requiring them to come at 10.30 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. and wait in the court hall. Fourthly, in cases where the certificates are not contested by the respondents, they may be marked by consent, thereby dispensing with the oral evidence. Thirdly, the Doctors may be given specific time for attending the Tribunal for giving evidence instead of requiring them to come at 10.30 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. and wait in the court hall. Fourthly, in cases where the certificates are not contested by the respondents, they may be marked by consent, thereby dispensing with the oral evidence. These small measures as also any other suitable steps taken to ensure the availability of expert evidence, will ensure assessment of just compensation and will go a long way in demonstrating that courts/Tribunals show concern for litigants and witnesses. 16. In case of any challenge to the Disability certificate being produced by the claimant at the time of trial, the claimant could get an opportunity to call the Doctors issuing such certificate. It is also well settled that strict proof as in an adversarial litigation is not required in a Motor Accident Claim case as the same is inquisitorial in nature. It is the duty of the tribunal to assess the just compensation. Since the genuinity of the Disability Certificate was not challenged by the Insurance Company at the time of trial and the said certificate was marked as an exhibit without objection, it was not obligatory on the part of the claimant to call the Doctor as witness for proving the assessment made by the doctor as to the extent of permanent disability indicated in the Disability Certificate. Thus, the second ground of challenge of Mr. Das has also no merit. 17. Mr. Das next submits that the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of amenities due to 75% permanent disability and Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and sufferings is excessive. He submits that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done and the court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy. In support of his said submission he refers to Raj Kumar (supra). 18. It has been held in Raj Kumar (supra) that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. In support of his said submission he refers to Raj Kumar (supra). 18. It has been held in Raj Kumar (supra) that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. He is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. It has further been held in the said judgment that while assessing the damage some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgement may be referred to in this regard which runs thus: General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [ (1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376 ] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [ (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [ 1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .] 6. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [ (1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376 ] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [ (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [ 1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .] 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 19. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses—Item (iii)—depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages—Items (iv), (v) and (vi)—involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Court’s contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability—Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. 20. Decisions of this Court and the High Court’s contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability—Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. 20. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant respondent submits that the learned court below was perfectly justified by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of amenities due to 75% permanent disablement. In support of his submission he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported at 2014 (1) T.A.C. 735 (SC) (Md. Jacob –vs.- United India Insurance Company ltd. And Another). 21. In Md. Jacob (supra) the claimant was a victim of road accident on July 27, 1997 and the Doctor assessed his disability at 100%. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal passed its judgement dated August 9, 2000, thereby allowing compensation on account of several heads including a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs. 4,00,000/- for permanent disability. On an appeal by the Insurance Company before the High Court at Madras, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to reduce the amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- for permanent disability to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Assailing the order reducing the amount of compensation under different heads, the claimant therein preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to affirm the order passed by the Claims Tribunal upon holding that there is no reason assigned for reducing the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering to Rs. 1,00,000/- and of Rs. 4,00,000/- for permanent disability to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 22. In the instant case the accident took place on 3rd May, 2011 and the learned Court below passed the judgement and/or award on 6th September, 2016. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant as well as the percentage of disability was of the view that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering. 23. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant as well as the percentage of disability was of the view that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering. 23. The claimant herein had to be treated from 03.5.2011 to 05.6.2011 and again from 10.9.2011 to 21.9.2011 as an indoor patient in an Hospital for the injury sustained by him due to the accident. Even after being released from hospital, the claimant was under treatment of Doctors and Physiotherapists and was totally unfit for doing any work. Due to the accident the claimant sustained severe injuries on different parts of his body and particularly on his thigh and legs for which he suffered 75% permanent disablement and also that he cannot move without the help of crutch. The claimant is also unable to do any work. He is also not able to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries. Thus the claimant is entitled to be compensated for not being able to lead a normal life. The assessment of compensation on account of non-pecuniary heads cannot be made with definite precision. After ascertaining the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-for loss of amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering. By taking into consideration the evidences on record particularly the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant as well as that the claimant had to go under medical treatment for a considerable period of time as an indoor patient and also after discharge from hospital and the fact that due to the accident the claimant has become 75% permanent disabled and unable to enjoy the normal amenities, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in awarding the said sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of amenities and 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering. As has been held in Raj Kumar (supra) that while assessing the damages some conjectures with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable. In our view, the discretion exercised by the tribunal while awarding the said compensation amount for loss of amenities and pain and suffering is a sound one. As has been held in Raj Kumar (supra) that while assessing the damages some conjectures with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable. In our view, the discretion exercised by the tribunal while awarding the said compensation amount for loss of amenities and pain and suffering is a sound one. When the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in awarding the said amount on non pecuniary heads after considering the evidences on record and the said discretion is neither arbitrary nor irrational, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on non pecuniary heads should not be interfered with by this Court in an appeal against such Award. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. The judgement and award dated 06.9.2016 passed by the learned Judge Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Suri Birbhum is hereby affirmed. 25. There shall be, however, no order as to cost. 26. The certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. I agree. : Harish Tandon, J.