JUDGMENT S Hukato Swu, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-01- 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 437 of 2009. 2. Facts of the case is that the claimant while travelling in an Auto rickshaw bearing registration NO. AS-14-C-1287 met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver on 07-10-2008. G.D. Entry of Ghograpar P.S No. 418 of 2008 was registered. The claimant was aged 38 years and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. from his service and other agricultural business. In the said accident, the claimant Shri Adhav Barman sustained injuries which fractured his right leg and was treated from different hospitals including Gauhati Medical College and he was also treated at Patna. The Orthopedic doctor has exhibited his evidence as Exhibit-2, Disability Certificate dated 23-12-2008 and Exhibit-79 showing 60% disability in both the cases. The Orthopedic doctor was a private practitioner who is stated to have been practicing for the last 30 years. The claimant was a bus driver earning Rs.5030 p.m. in Vidya Bharati, Akhil Bharatiyan Shiksha Sansthan which is proved by Exhibit-15. PW-15 appears and deposed that he was the in-charge of the buses pertaining to that school. 3. On examination of evidences and on hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal did not accept the views rendered by the doctor opining that Exhibit-79 and Exhibit14 shows that the fracture had already joined and therefore, the assessment of 60% disability certificate issued by the Orthopedic doctor who appears as PW-4 is not convincing. Accordingly, on completion of the enquiry, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads as shown below:- 1. Medical expenses : Rs. 60,700/- 2. Incidental expenses- : Rs. 35,000/ 3. Expenses for future treatment : Rs. 10,000/- 4. Compensation for painand suffering : Rs. 1,20,000/- 5. Loss of income for twelve months : Rs 60,000/- Total Rs. 2,86,060/- The above amount was awarded to the claimant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization i.e. effective from 17-03-2009. 4. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal petition has been filed. 5. 10,000/- 4. Compensation for painand suffering : Rs. 1,20,000/- 5. Loss of income for twelve months : Rs 60,000/- Total Rs. 2,86,060/- The above amount was awarded to the claimant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization i.e. effective from 17-03-2009. 4. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal petition has been filed. 5. The appellant has argued that there is no major contradiction in the instant case and the burden of proof in motor accident claim case is less than balance of probability and as such, the learned Tribunal should have awarded just compensation in view of facts and circumstances. The learned Tribunal also did not take into consideration that the defence could not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to discard the appellant s case. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctor and other witnesses in its proper perspective as well as the fact that the claimant was a driver by profession. Therefore, there should have been 12% interest award from the date of accident and not from the date of filing and the learned Tribunal should have also considered increment of 50% increase in the income of the claimant since the claimant was aged 38 years only. Besides this, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. Lal has argued that the claimant in addition to his income as a driver of bus, he was earning a sum of Rs. 9000/- p.m. after office duty from his auto rickshaw which is exhibited as Exhibit-16. Thus, there is also loss of earning from that auto rickshaw which contributed Rs. 9,000/- p.m to the family income. In addition to this, since he was totally handicapped, he was compelled to employ a servant who was paid Rs. 3,000 p.m. The above expenditure incurred by him has to be considered as a loss and computed towards compensation. He has also submitted that this was necessitated as his wife was also critically injured in the same accident. Under the above circumstances, the employment of a helper was necessitated and should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. With respect of the evidence rendered by PW-4 which has negated the opinion of the doctor is not in conformity with the jurisprudential norms laid down by the Apex Court. Under the above circumstances, the employment of a helper was necessitated and should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. With respect of the evidence rendered by PW-4 which has negated the opinion of the doctor is not in conformity with the jurisprudential norms laid down by the Apex Court. He has argued that the doctor opinion was never cross-examined by the defence and hence, as per the jurisprudential norms, his testimony should be accepted. This is supported by the Apex Court ruling in the case of Sarwan Singh-vs-State of Punjab,2002 STPL 15023 SC, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:- Now, my lords, I cannot help saying that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact, by some questions put in crossexamination showing that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which it is suggested indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always understood that if you intent to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses 6. This being the position of law, the view taken by the learned Tribunal in discarding the opining of the doctor is against the jurisprudential norms. He has also cited the Apex Court s ruling in the case of D. Sampath-vs-United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2012) AIR SC 544 , where it was held that the opinion rendered by the doctor should be accepted unless there is something which is glaringly erroneous. He has also cited the Apex Court s ruling in the case of D. Sampath-vs-United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2012) AIR SC 544 , where it was held that the opinion rendered by the doctor should be accepted unless there is something which is glaringly erroneous. On the plea that the recommendation should be from the Board of Government Doctor is repulsed by the judgment of the Apex s Court in the case of G. Gnanam @Gnanamorthy-vs-Metropolitan Transport Corporation,2009 AIR SC 116 as under:- 10. Did the case involve a contributory negligence on the part of the appellant? Our answer thereto is rendered in the negative. The High Court, with outmost respect, should not have disbelieved the evidence of a Doctor of a government hospital on the supposition that he had been issuing certificates fixing permanent disability which was not proportionate to the injury . Even no such suggestion had been given to him. That was never the case of the respondent. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he is a specialist Surgeon and not Orthopaedican and he had assessed the disability correctly. Except putting a suggestion to him that there was a possibility of 5% error in assessing the disability between doctor to doctor; no other question was put to him. 7. In the case of Ashima Dey-vs-Abhijit Dey and Others passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.R.R. No. 823 of 2003 on 21-12-2004, the Court has held as under:- Law does not distinguish the evidence of a private doctor from that of a Government hospital doctor. Evidence of P.W.2, a private practitioner has the same value, importance and quality like the evidence of PW.4. There was no evidence before the Court to establish that PW.2 intentionally gave false evidence and issued false medical report. While appreciating the evidence of a private doctor and a Government hospital doctor the evidence of both the doctors shall have same quality and importance. 8. The same view was taken in the above referred cases. He has further argued that the employment of a relative is valid. While appreciating the evidence of a private doctor and a Government hospital doctor the evidence of both the doctors shall have same quality and importance. 8. The same view was taken in the above referred cases. He has further argued that the employment of a relative is valid. The issue that there is jural relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the maid servant who is employed has also been answered in the case of Smti T.S. Shylaja-vs-Oriental Insurance Company and Another, (2014) AIR SC 893 , wherein, it was held that there is no law which held that relative cannot hold the relationship of employer and employee. Hence, the view that maid servant was a relative and therefore, computation of the award should not be considered is a wrong misconception of law. He has argued that the procedure of inquiry in the claim cases should not be conducted at bar with the criminal and civil cases, the decision of our own High Court on the issue is rendered in the case of Union of India and Another-vs-Mrs.Saraswati Debnath and Others,1995 STPL 1342 Gauhati. To further substantiate his view, he has furnished the dates of treatment which was undergone by the claimant which is shown as follows:- 1. Date of accident :07-10-2008 2. Preliminary treatment at Nalbari ( Ext. 19 page 66) :07-10-2008 3. Admitted to GMCH Hospital (Ext.-4, page 41) : 07-10-2008 4. Disablement Certificate (Ext. 14, page 55) : 23-12-2008 5. Treatment at GMCH (Ext. 10, page 50) :17-03-2009 6. Treatment at GMCH (Ext. 10, page 50) (Supplemented by Ext. 55, page 82) :17-03-2009 7. Treatment at Down Town Hospital (Ext. 58, 59, at page 84 & 85) : 05-07-2009 8. Treatment at Patna (Train Ticket Ext. 67, 68 & 69 at [age 89 & 90) (Doctor prescription Ext. 11 page 52 : 28-07-2009 9. Physiotherapy exercise under the guidance Of Dr. Pulakesh Chakraborty A; Prescription (Ext. 12 page 53 & 54 : 02-08-2009 10. Admitted to GMCH Hospital (Ext.78 page 104 of Additional Affidavit) : 22-10-2013 to 30-10-2013 11. Disablement Certificate ( Ext. 79 at page 106 of Additional Affidavit.) : 07-02-2014 9. This clearly shows that the victim was under treatment with effect from 07-10- 2008 to 07-02-2014. Pulakesh Chakraborty A; Prescription (Ext. 12 page 53 & 54 : 02-08-2009 10. Admitted to GMCH Hospital (Ext.78 page 104 of Additional Affidavit) : 22-10-2013 to 30-10-2013 11. Disablement Certificate ( Ext. 79 at page 106 of Additional Affidavit.) : 07-02-2014 9. This clearly shows that the victim was under treatment with effect from 07-10- 2008 to 07-02-2014. For all the above stated reasons, he has argued that the order dated 29-01-2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 437 of 2009 has to be interfered with and compensation as prayed for should be accorded to the claimant in the interest of justice. 10. Appearing for the respondent No.2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami submits that the Exhibit-14 is the certificate of disability issued on 23-12-2008 which has shown permanent disability of 60 % has many defects and there are questionable issues involved in the certificate prompting the learned Tribunal to discard it as a piece of evidence. The said certificate which is relied upon by the claimant does not stand on sound principle of medical practice and the evidence of the doctor in the instant case is not reliable for granting compensation for disability. The claimant was treated at Gauhati Medical College Hospital. The doctor who issued the certificate is Dr. R.N. Chakravartry but was not the treating doctor and he has relied upon the x-ray which was presumably taken after the accident where the claimant is said to have suffered a fracture. Added to all these irregularities, the x-ray report clearly suggests that there is union of bones which were fractured and therefore, to come to the conclusion that there is 60% disability is not logical. He has questioned the clinical observation without the aid of radiological report which is not at all acceptable as the same relates to union of bone which is serious in nature. This is a matter to be determined by radiological report which is not seen in the instant claim petition. These are the ways of quacks and cannot be accepted for coming to scientific determination. 11. Exhibit-11 issued by the Arabinda Hospital on 28-07-2009 that is after 9 months of the accident shows that the fracture is uniting. Again in the same Exhibit-11, in one place under the heading advice is written fracture united . These are the ways of quacks and cannot be accepted for coming to scientific determination. 11. Exhibit-11 issued by the Arabinda Hospital on 28-07-2009 that is after 9 months of the accident shows that the fracture is uniting. Again in the same Exhibit-11, in one place under the heading advice is written fracture united . The claimant himself has submitted a document which shows that the bone is united and his injury is cured and there can be no reason for disability. Again in Exhibit-79 issued on 07-02-2014 by the same Dr. R.N. Chakrabarty who has not treated the claimant at any point of time in the intervening period of 6 years without the support of radiological report and without stating about the union of bone has come to a finding that the claimant has suffered from 60% disability. The Exhibit-79 is conspicuously silent about the change in the condition of the union of bone. After 6 years of treatment, the bone have shown to be healed and shown to have united. The doctor should have given disability as per the x-ray report. However, the same condition was suppressed and a certificate was issued. He has given prediction that there is no more scope for further recovery. 12. For all the reasons stated, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the disability certificate issued by the doctor not because he is a private doctor or not a treating doctor but because of the fact that the certificate was not worthy of any reliability and credibility. The learned Tribunal has correctly rejected that evidence regarding disability as exaggerated version and the same may not be interfered with. 13. With respect to the issue of attendant for taking care of the injury, he has placed reliance in the Apex Court ruling in the case of R.D. Hattangadi-vs-Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others,1995 1 SCC 51 wherein an advocate was injured and he was totally disabled who had to be assisted by an attendant for every move he made. However, in the instant case, the claimant has not suffered from such disability to consider awarding compensation for attendant and the same may not be allowed. However, in the instant case, the claimant has not suffered from such disability to consider awarding compensation for attendant and the same may not be allowed. The assessment in the instant case is with respect of one limb but the Court has always followed the precedent of determining the disability for the whole body and hence, even if the percentage of disability is to be considered, 60 % disability should not be considered. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the documents, I am of the view that there are certain lapses and defects in the report and opinion rendered by the doctor. However, considering all the evidences of the treatment that the claimant/victim has undergone, there is on record the existence of genuine treatment for a prolonged period of 6 years and it is not in keeping with the evidence that the claimant was not disabled at all despite the irregularity which may be present in the document. For a driver to have compound fracture of the leg, his disability will have been affected to a certain extent. Disability as such may not relate only to union of fracture that the victim may suffer but it can be related to the aftermath effects of the accident whereby his normal movement of the limb will be effected. The fact that he was advised for physiotherapy suggests that there were disturbances in his limb movement which is of vital importance in the profession of a driver. Therefore, after having observed that the accident is not questioned and the treatment undergone for 6 years being not questioned, some degree of truth will be there in the report. Since the matter is related to only one limb, it cannot be held that there is no disability. There is disability effecting the efficiency of the claimant as a professional driver. Accordingly, 30 % disability shall be considered for computing the compensation. 15. Claimant will also be in need of attendant during this 6 years of treatment as his legs were not fully healed and lump sum for such period should be considered. It is more strengthened by the fact that the victim s wife was also injured in the same accident and hence, a lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is to be granted for expenditure on attendant. It is more strengthened by the fact that the victim s wife was also injured in the same accident and hence, a lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is to be granted for expenditure on attendant. Claimant has also argued that he has lost his earning of Rs. 9,000/- p.m which is the earning from an auto rickshaw he owns and earns by driving that auto rickshaw after his duty as a driver is completed. However, this cannot be considered for computation of compensation. 16. With the above consideration, the newly computed award is as follows:- 1. Loss of earning from salary 5030 x 30 100 = 1509 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 2,71,620/- 2. Medical expenses = Rs. 60,700/- 3. Pain and suffering = Rs. 1,20,000/- 4. Expenses for future treatment = Rs. 50,000/- 5. Lump sum for expenses on attendant = Rs. 1, 50,000/- _____________________ Total Rs. 6,52,320/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty two thousand three hundred and twenty) only. 17. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,52,320/- which will carry interest @ 9 % p.a. till realization of the awarded amount. The award is subjected to adjustment to any payment that has been made to the claimant. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.