JUDGMENT : Ajai Tyagi, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Chitrakoot ('Tribunal', for short), vide order dated 21.5.2005 in M.A.C.P. No.123/70/2001 (Dr. Suresh Prashad Tripathi v. Jai Ram Shukla and others) whereby claimant/appellant was awarded Rs.10,000/-, as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that claimant/appellant was doctor in Civil Hospital, Chitrakoot. On 3.3.2001, at about 9:00 A.M., he was going from Kervi to Banda for an official work by bus bearing No. U.P.70-S/8555. The driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently and by driving so, he hit the Jeep No.U.P.70-J/9604 near Pand Nala Puliya, which was coming from the opposite direction. In this accident appellant sustained injuries. His right leg was fractured and he became permanently disabled. Only respondent No.3-New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. contested the petition and filed its written statement. 3. It was claimed by the appellant that he incurred Rs.1,60,000/- towards payment of medical bills and became disabled permanently to the tune of 50%, but learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings and rest of the prayers were declined. 4. Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained as Rs.10,000/- were awarded and no amount of medical bills and loss of amenities et cetera was awarded. It is submitted by learned counsel that due to the result of the injuries sustained in accident, appellant became 50% physically handicapped. A permanent disability certificate was issued by Chief Medical officer, Chitrakoot, which is on the record PW2 - Dr. A.K. Mohan proved the certificate. It is also submitted that Dr. A.K. Mohan has also signed the disability certificate, but learned Tribunal did not pay any head towards it and declined the compensation for disability on the ground that claimant did not have any loss of earning due to disability. Learned counsel stated that this finding is erroneous because there is deficiency in day to day functioning of the appellant due to this disability. He next submitted that medical bills were also not reimbursed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel stated that this finding is erroneous because there is deficiency in day to day functioning of the appellant due to this disability. He next submitted that medical bills were also not reimbursed by the Tribunal. On the basis of above arguments, learned counsel prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, submitted that appellant has submitted claim, which is result of exaggeration. First of all, it is said by learned counsel that all the so-called medical bills, filed by the claimant, are just photostat copies and the original bills were not submitted by him. Therefore, learned Tribunal rightly refused to pay for those medical bills. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that as per the averments made in the petition, claimant was admitted in Priti Hospital, Prayagraj, where his leg was operated, but again no such documentary evidence is placed on record. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that Dr. A.K Mohan has admitted in his evidence as PW-2 that appellant did not receive any injury in his knee while the disability certificate was on the basis of injuries in thigh and knee and it is also admitted by him that there is no loss of income of claimant due to disability. Moreover, claimant himself has said in his cross-examination as PW-1 that he had loss of income for the reason that he had to employ two assistants for his routine-works while he has not filed any such evidence on record. Lastly, learend counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the real fact is that PW2-Dr.A.K. Mohan was also serving in District Hospital in Chitrakoot where he was junior to claimant and that's why he and other doctors including Chief Medical Officer have issued a false disability certificate, which was not believed by learned Tribunal for incurring any loss of income by the claimant. Hence, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment which calls for any interference by this Court. 7. In this matter, accident is not disputed by respondent No.3, rather a suggestion is given to appellant in his evidence as PW1 that accident took place due to the negligence of driver of the jeep. It means accident is admitted. Hence, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment which calls for any interference by this Court. 7. In this matter, accident is not disputed by respondent No.3, rather a suggestion is given to appellant in his evidence as PW1 that accident took place due to the negligence of driver of the jeep. It means accident is admitted. The Insurance Company has not disputed any liability on it because the bus was insured on the date of accident, as per the findings in Issue No.4. Now, we come directly to the point of compensation. 8. It is a case of appellant that he sustained injuries in aforesaid accident and became permanently disabled to the tune of 50%, as per disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer Chitrakoot. It is also the case of the appellant that he incurred Rs.1,60,000/- towards medical expenses, but these medical bills were not considered by the Tribunal for payment. In this regard, it is admitted that only xerox copies of those bills were produced by the appellant and no explanation is given as to why the original bills were not produced. Even on a query made by us on this point, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant could not tell any reason. Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly refused to consider the photostat copies of the medical bills. Apart from it, it is relevant to mention that appellant has claimed that his leg was operated upon in Priti Hospital, Prayagraj, and a rod was fitted in the leg and on this point, learned Tribunal has opined that there is no record of admission and discharge of the appellant in aforesaid hospital, but perusal of record shows that there is receipt of Priti Hospital, Prayagraj, on the record for Rs.24,000/-, which also mentions 8.3.2001 as date of admission and 28.3.2001 as date of discharge, but this document is also a xerox copy and not the original one. Hence, this amount also cannot be paid back to the claimant for the xerox copy. Appellant has not clarified as to why original medical bills were not produced even on our asking. Hence, we fully agree with the findings of Tribunal with regard to non-payment of medical bills, as they are xerox copies and may be, being the Government Servant, he may have taken reimbursement from department. 9. Now, we come to the controversy of disability certificate. Hence, we fully agree with the findings of Tribunal with regard to non-payment of medical bills, as they are xerox copies and may be, being the Government Servant, he may have taken reimbursement from department. 9. Now, we come to the controversy of disability certificate. Although, the learned Tribunal has written in impugned judgment that original disability certificate was not produced and only its photostat copy was on record. Even then, we consider this point in the light of evidence led by PW-1 Dr. A.K. Mohan, because he is the person who has put his signature on disability certificate as Orthopaedic Surgeon, so he has given evidence in this regard. As per injury report of the claimant, only two injuries were found on his body in which injury No.1 is abrasion on the nose and injury No.2 was on the right thigh, which was a contusion. X-ray was adviced but we are suprised from the statement of Dr. A.K. Mohan that he was not sure whether he saw this X-ray report or not. Hence, he denied to give any statement regarding X-ray report in his evidence. It is pertinent to mention that disability certificate was issued on the basis of X-ray report, which shows two injuries; one on thigh and the other on knee and this X-ray report is signed by Dr.A.K. Mohan, but in his statement before the Tribunal the said doctor has stated that he found no injury on the knee, yet he had shown the knee as frozen. Further, it is clarified by him that the knee could be freezed due to negligence of claimant himself and it is also said by him if he had taken physiotherapy treatment, it could have been cured. Appellant/claimant has nowhere said in his statement that he has taken any physiotherapy treatment. Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. A.K. Mohan was the only doctor in Medical Board, who was having expertise in this type of injuries, sustained by claimant, but he was not sure whether he persued the X-ray plate/X-ray report. It is admission of Dr.A.K. Mohan that he found no injury on knee yet he had shown it frozen. Moreover, it is also stated by him that claimant's injury could be cured by physiotherapy and frozen knee could be the result of his own negligence. 10. It is admission of Dr.A.K. Mohan that he found no injury on knee yet he had shown it frozen. Moreover, it is also stated by him that claimant's injury could be cured by physiotherapy and frozen knee could be the result of his own negligence. 10. Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, the disability certificate, itself, becomes doubtful and is not in conformity with the X-ray report, on which basis, it is prepared. Hence, this certificate cannot be relied on. As far as, the expenses regarding attendants are concerned, there is no such evidence on record that he had paid any money to any attendant. 11. In view of the discussion made above, we are in full agreement with the findings given by learned Tribunal and claimant was rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- with 7% per annum rate of interest for pain and sufferings, way back in the year 2005 for the accident occured in the year 2001. 12. Hence the appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly.