JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 04.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.555/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.02.2012. 4. The facts would show that the petitioner is resident of Reddytungala village of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam eking out his livelihood by doing welding work. On 08.02.2012 the petitioner came down to Mangalagiri to attend the marriage of his nephew and on 10.02.2012 at about 08.00 a.m., he boarded auto bearing No.AP 27 35V 3308, near Hai Land in order to go to Mangalagiri, and when the auto reached Union Petrol Bunk, near Chinakakani village, the auto driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, and on sudden application of brake by him in the middle of the road, the auto turned turtle and petitioner fell on the road and the auto fell on his left leg, and thereby he sustained grievous injuries to his left hip joint, besides other multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, and he was treated as inpatient, and a surgery was performed to his left hip joint by inserting rods, and spent Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses. The Mangalagiri Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.24/2012 against the driver of auto. The petitioner is aged 56 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.250/-per day out of his welding work and due to injuries and permanent disability, the petitioner is unable to attend his welding work and thereby lost earnings and earning capacity. The 1st respondent is owner of auto bearing No.AP 35V 3308, 2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 5. The 1st respondent is owner of auto bearing No.AP 35V 3308, 2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of auto was not having valid and effective driving license, and he was not qualified to drive the same during the accident. The auto driver was under the influence of alcohol, and talking over cell phone at the time of accident, and the said auto was over loaded with passengers more than the permissible capacity, and thereby the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by vehicle auto bearing No.AP 35V 3308? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1, held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 10.02.2012 due to rash and negligent act of driver of 1st respondent, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.48,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 9. This appeal is filed by the claimants assailing the order and decree dated 04.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.555/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur. 10. 9. This appeal is filed by the claimants assailing the order and decree dated 04.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.555/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur. 10. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of income, since he failed to produce the disability certificate, though the appellant examined P.W-2, who treated him and deposed that the appellant suffered permanent partial disability 25 to 30%. The further contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate properly the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , and came to a wrong opinion that the disability certificate is not filed. The Tribunal also erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant for medical expenses on the ground that the appellant was treated under Arogya Sree Scheme, which covers only surgical bills, but not medical bills, and therefore, the Tribunal did not award just compensation. 11. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the appellant examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W-2 and it is not under dispute the doctor, who treated him specifically deposed about the injuries sustained by the appellant and opined that the appellant suffered permanent partial disability 25 to 30% and the evidence of the appellant would establish that he was doing welding work prior to the date of accident, and on account of the disability suffered by him, he is unable to do the same work, and as such, his earning capacity has been reduced, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation towards disability to the extent suffered by him due to the accident. 12. The learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the appellant did not produce permanent disability certificate as issued by any Medical Board, and further P.W-2 did not issue any certificate though he orally deposed about the disability, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of earnings on account of permanent disability. 13. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Ajay Kumar and another, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of earnings on account of permanent disability. 13. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation? 2. To what relief? 14. POINT No.1: The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and in that accident, the appellant sustained injuries. This finding is not challenged either by the owner of the auto nor the respondent/Insurance Company. 15. The contention of the appellant is that in the accident, he suffered injuries and he was shifted to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri. The case of the appellant is that the doctor at NRI Hospital, after examining the injuries, issued Ex.A-3 wound certificate. Ex.A-3 would establish that the appellant sustained injuries as under: 1. An abrasion 1x1 cm over Ant aspect of left thigh 2. An abrasion over medial aspect left knee 3. Multiple abrasions over lateral aspect of left leg 4. Commuted fracture of left femur 16. The contention of the appellant is that on account of the above injuries, his movements are restricted in left hip joint and due to one inch shortening of left leg, he cannot squat on the floor, and walk long distance, and he is unfit to do welding work. The appellant has examined the doctor, who treated him, as P.W-2. 17. The contention of the appellant is that on account of the above injuries, his movements are restricted in left hip joint and due to one inch shortening of left leg, he cannot squat on the floor, and walk long distance, and he is unfit to do welding work. The appellant has examined the doctor, who treated him, as P.W-2. 17. The evidence of P.W-2 would establish that he treated the appellant in NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, and on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, it is found that his movements of left hip joint are restricted, and there is shortening of left leg to the extent of one inch, and as a result, the appellant cannot squat on the floor and walk long distance, and the patient is unfit to do welding work and in future, he may develop degenerate arthritis of left hip joint, as the fracture is involving proximal part of the hip joint, and further for removal of implants, another surgery is required, and it will cost around Rs.20,000/-to Rs.30,000/-, and he also produced case sheet, which is placed as Ex.X-1, and also x-rays placed as Ex.A-9, and he opined that the patient suffered partial permanent disability 25 to 30% on account of the injuries i.e., fracture to the left hip. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he has not issued any disability certificate to the patient, and patient can do work by sitting in chair. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, held in Para No.4 and 5 as under: General principles relating to compensation in injury cases The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`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 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. The court or 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. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 , R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 ). The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, further held in para No.9 as under: “The Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court regarding ascertainment of effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity held in para No.10 as under: “Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court about duty of the Tribunal, in this regard held in para No.11 as under: “The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the same judgment cautioned the Tribunals as under: “The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 23. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness certificates. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness certificates. Further held that the Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. Therefore, when doctor giving evidence regarding the permanent disability, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal must seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. 24. In the case on hand, the claimant did not produce any disability certificate issued by a Medical Board or any other body. But the claimant has examined the doctor, who treated him. The doctor, who treated the claimant in his evidence assessed the disability of the appellant as 25 to 30%. The doctor further deposed that on account of the disability, left hip joint movements are restricted, and left leg was shortened by one inch and therefore, the patient cannot squat on the floor, and walk long distance, and he is unfit to do welding work, and in future he may develop degenerate arthritis of left hip joint, as the fracture is involving proximal part of the hip joint, and patient was discharged from the hospital and he can do work by sitting in chair. Therefore, the evidence of the doctor, who treated the claimant would establish that the claimant cannot do welding work which he was doing prior to the accident. The respondents did not adduce any contra evidence. Therefore, the evidence of the doctor, who treated the claimant would establish that the claimant cannot do welding work which he was doing prior to the accident. The respondents did not adduce any contra evidence. In that view of the matter the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings due to permanent disability. 25. The Tribunal notionally fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-per month, and annual income would be Rs.3,000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/-. The age of the claimant is 56 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 , is ‘9’. The loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability @ 25% would comes to Rs.36,000 x 9 x ¼ = Rs.81,000/-. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.81,000/-towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total compensation amount entitled by the claimant is Rs.81,000 + 48,000 = Rs.1,29,000/-. 26. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 27. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 28. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal, and it is held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,29,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Nine Thousand only), with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of deposit. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,29,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Nine Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,29,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Nine Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.