JUDGMENT : Subhendu Samanta, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31st day of May, 2022 passed by the learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 10th Bench City Civil Court in MACC No. 190 of 2012. 2. The brief of fact of the case is that the husband of the present claimant namely one Shambhu Kumar Kamat on 21.03.2012 at about 11:30 hrs was proceeding along a APC Bose Road by his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. WB 012/3000 from Sealdah side to Maniktala by his motor cycle and stopped at traffic signal at the time the offending bus bearing No. WB 04 C/ 5354 coming in high speed and rash and negligent manner dashed the victim motor cycle from behind. As a result Sambhu Kamat became seriously injured all over his person and was removed to NRS Medical College and Hospital and therefrom he was shifted Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Kolkata for better treatment. Subsequently again admitted to Flemming Nursing Home and thereafter again admitted at Santosh Chest hospital at Chennai. 3. By such accident the said S. Kammat became permanently disabled. The wife of the said injured preferred an application before the Learned Tribunal on behalf of his husband u/s 166 of MV Act for getting compensation on the ground accident happened due to sustained negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 4. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement. After hearing the parties and after recording the evidences the Learned Tribunal has awarded a Sum of Rs. 23,50,000/-(twenty three lakh fifty thousand) towards the compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the claimants has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award, Learned Advocate Mrs. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the clamant/appellants submits that the instant appeal has preferred challenging the impugned award on the following grounds: i) Income of the injured was not properly calculated. ii) Functional disability of the injured was not properly calculated. iii) Future prospects was not properly calculated. iv) Attendance charge and future medical expanses also not considered. Firstly, Mr. Bhattacharya Learned Advocate submits that the claim application was filed stating the income and avocation of the injured. ii) Functional disability of the injured was not properly calculated. iii) Future prospects was not properly calculated. iv) Attendance charge and future medical expanses also not considered. Firstly, Mr. Bhattacharya Learned Advocate submits that the claim application was filed stating the income and avocation of the injured. It has been stated therein that injured was an employer of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries Ltd, the monthly income of the Injured was stated to be Rs. 20,000/-. The employer of the injured as appeared before the Learned Tribunal and deposed as PW 7. During his evidence PW 7 stated that the injured was one of the employees of the concern namely Loknath Printing Industry and used to earn salary of Rs 20,000/-per month. 6. He further submits that, the Learned Tribunal has not considered the evidences and abruptly adopted the notional income to be Rs. 5,000/-.Mr. Bhattacharya further argued that the income and avocation has been categorically proved by the claimant, on the other hand the Insurance Company has not produced a single evidence to contradict the pleadings and proof of the claimant so in this case the monthly income assessed by the Learned Tribunal (Rs 5,000/-) is erroneous. He submits that for calculation of just and proper compensation of this case the income of the injured should be calculated to Rs. 20,000/-per month. 7. Mrs. Sucharita Paul Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing monthly notional income of the claimant to Rs. 5,000/-Mrs. Paul pointed out the cross-examination of PW 7, wherein the PW 7 admitted that he does not have any document to show that he is the manager of that firm. She further argued that the document i.e. the document showing income certificate (Exhibit 29), issued by the PW 7 cannot be believed. On plain perusal of said income certificate it would be revealed, that it was printed in a scrape of paper, no registration No. or reference was mentioned therein. The same document can be prepared through any computer. Only adducing evidences by proving the signature of a document does not proved the contract of the document. 8. On plain perusal of said income certificate it would be revealed, that it was printed in a scrape of paper, no registration No. or reference was mentioned therein. The same document can be prepared through any computer. Only adducing evidences by proving the signature of a document does not proved the contract of the document. 8. She further argued that the Learned Tribunal has perused the materials that is, Exhibit -29 and has correctly observed that the said document cannot be believed; accordingly, the Learned Tribunal has adopted the notional Income of the injured to be Rs. 5,000/-,she further argued that the Learned Tribunal has justifiably assessed the income of the injured. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellant cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 204. He referred the paragraph 9 of the above citation, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed: In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month. 10. Heard the Learned Advocates, perused the evidences also perused the observation of the Learned Tribunal. The claim application stated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 20,000/-; the name of the employer was stated to be M/s. Lokenath Printing Industries. The PW 1 stated that her husband’s income was 20,000/-as an employee of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries. The evidence goes to show that he was a graphic designer of the said printing press. PW 7 appeared to be the Manager of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries stated that the victim used to earn Rs. 20,000/-per month as an employee. The PW 1 stated that her husband’s income was 20,000/-as an employee of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries. The evidence goes to show that he was a graphic designer of the said printing press. PW 7 appeared to be the Manager of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries stated that the victim used to earn Rs. 20,000/-per month as an employee. The Learned Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW 7 on the ground that income tax return or any other documents like income and expenditure-sheet or balance-sheet of the said Printing Press has not been produced. 11. It appears to me that PW 7 is a summoned witness and by the direction of the summon he appeared to prove his signature over the income certificate of the injured. It is true the income certificate is prepared of a pad of such Printing Industries, but it appears that the PW 7 was not summoned to produce the income and expenditure sheet and other balance sheet to prove the existences of M/s. Loknath Printing Industries. Mr. Paul argued about the validity of Exhibit 29 (Income Certificate) but no materials or contradictory evidences were produced by the Insurance Company to show that the said Printing Press is not in existence or to contradict the evidentiary value of PW 7. 12. Considering the entire materials and considering the fact that in a case u/s 166 of MV Act the claimant is required to prove the facts on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, in this case I am of a view the observation of the Learned Tribunal regarding the income of the injured is erroneous. The income of the injured should be considered to be Rs. 20,000/-per month. 13. In considering the Functional Disability of the injured in this case, it appears to me that the injured has produced two disability certificates to prove his disability; first is the Exhibit -18 which the disability certificate issued by one doctor namely Dr. Prashanta Mandal (PW 2), and another is the disability certificate issued by the superintendent, Kolkata Medical College and Hospital. The Exhibit 18 stated the disability of the injured to be 100% but the disability certificate issued by the Medical College discloses the disability to be 70%. 14. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that PW 2 i.e. the Dr. Prashanta Mandal (PW 2), and another is the disability certificate issued by the superintendent, Kolkata Medical College and Hospital. The Exhibit 18 stated the disability of the injured to be 100% but the disability certificate issued by the Medical College discloses the disability to be 70%. 14. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that PW 2 i.e. the Dr. Prashanta Mandal deposed before the Learned Tribunal that on physical examination of the injured and after consult the medical papers of different hospitals, functional disability of the injured can be assessed 100%. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the evidence of PW 2 i.e. the Dr. cannot be ruled out regarding the disability of the injured. He further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar clarified that the evidence of Dr. treated the patient can be considered to prove the functional disability of the injured. 15. Mrs. Paul Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the evidence PW 2 as well as the disability certificate (Exhibit 18) cannot be believed. The said private doctor is a pocket witness of the claimants, and on several claim cases he used to give his opinion without actually examining the injured. She further argued that from the evidence of PW 2 it would be revealed that he never treated the injured in any point of time, his opinion regarding the head injury and suffering right side “Hemiplegia”, is complete of guess work PW-2, actually never examined the injured. She further argued that, PW 2 has issued the disability certificate on 15.05.2013 stating the functional disability of the injured to be 100% due to the “right side Hemiplegia” following head injury, but the doctors of Government Hospital in Kolkata Medical College and Hospital has opined that the injured was suffering “right side Hemiparesis”. The value on documentary evidence after through clinical examination of three expert doctors issuing the disability certificate is more reliable than the disability certificate issued by PW 2. She submits that the Learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the functional disability of the injured to be 70%. 16. Heard the Learned Advocates perused the Exhibit 18, as well as the disability certificate issued by the Superintendent of Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. She submits that the Learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the functional disability of the injured to be 70%. 16. Heard the Learned Advocates perused the Exhibit 18, as well as the disability certificate issued by the Superintendent of Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. It is true that, the injured have suffered head injury due to the road traffic accident and after such injury it is reported that he was unconscious and there was bleeding from his face and ears. Further it appears that he was treated in different hospital and after treatment, due to his head injury his right side of the body became stiff. 17. The medical termination of “Hemiplegia” means “paralysis or weakness of one side of the body”. On the other hand “Hemiparesis” means “one side muscle weakness or weakness for makes it difficult to move of one side of the body”. So, it appears that the condition of “Hemiplegia” is more serious than the condition of “Hemiparesis”. The disability certificate of Calcutta Medical College and Exhibit 18 appears to me contradictory. Surprisingly, it appears to me very odd, that why the injured after receiving the disability certificate from PW 2 on 15.05.2013. He again appeared before the medical board at 19.06.2013. 18. Considering the both disability certificate of this case it is necessary to set out the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar in para-18. 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. 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. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also make a guideline to assess the functional disability of one injured on the basis of his bodily disability. 12. Therefore, 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. 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. It is true that PW 2 (Private Doctor) never treated the injured. Moreover, he has not conducted a single examination over the person of the injured at the time of injury the disability certificate. On the other hand Board of Doctor of Kolkata Medical College has examined the injured at the time of issuing the disability certificate. So the certificate issued by PW 2 (Private Doctor) appears to me not believable. 21. The avocation of the injured was stated to be graphic designer. On the other hand Board of Doctor of Kolkata Medical College has examined the injured at the time of issuing the disability certificate. So the certificate issued by PW 2 (Private Doctor) appears to me not believable. 21. The avocation of the injured was stated to be graphic designer. From the evidence of the record it has not been proved that the power of graphic designing of the present injured has totally destroyed. The injury over the head of the injured make him difficult to move the right portion of the body, but being a graphic designer the injured is not required to be work physically. Thus it cannot be said that the entire avocation of the victim has been destroyed by the alleged road traffic accident. So, after considering the materials on record and also considering the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) the functional disability of that injury would be 70%. Learned Tribunal has not committed any error on that point. 22. In considering the future prospects of this case it appears to me that the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi has observed that in a case u/s 166 of MV Act, the claimant is entitled to get the future prospects; it has been specifically observed that if the injured had a permanent job and aged below 40 years, the future prospects would be 50% of the actual salary of the injured; but where the deceased was a self-employed or had fixed salary, and aged below 40 years, the future prospects would be 40% of his establish income. Nothing material has been placed before the Learned Tribunal or before this court to prove that the injured had a permanent job. The salary certificate (Exhibit 29) only disclose that the injured was an employee and was drawing salary of Rs. 20,000/-per month. No pay-slip or bank particulars was produced, thus, it can be safely hold that the injured was in an employment having fixed income. The injured suffered the accident within the age of 40 years (age group of 30to 35years) so in this case the future prospects would be 40%. 23. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the disability certificate issued by the Medical College and Hospital Calcutta as well as the Exhibit 18 stated that the injured cannot travel or without assistance of escort. 23. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the disability certificate issued by the Medical College and Hospital Calcutta as well as the Exhibit 18 stated that the injured cannot travel or without assistance of escort. So he argued, that by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and ors., the sufficient attendance charge has to be awarded in favour of the injured. 24. Mrs. Paul submitted that the injured may entitled to get the non-pecuniary damages but he is not entitled to get the attendance charge. Heard the Learned Advocate perused the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal. In the case of Kajal a bright young girl sustained severe injury due to road traffic accident resulting heavy damage of her brain, the IQ level after the accident of Kajal was calculated to be 20%, as a 09 months old child; in that case the Hon’ble Apex Court is of opinion that Kajal even could not move without assistance of an escort. The case of Kajal is totally dissimilar to the facts of this case, thus, it is distinguishable. Moreover, the injured never appeared before the Learned Tribunal, so it is quite difficult in this case to assess whether an escort is required for the injured or not. 25. So, in this case, I am of a view that the prayer for attendance charge cannot be allowed rather injured is entitled to get some damages of non-pecuniary head. It appears that the Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-towards the non pecuniary head. I think it necessary to award further 50,000/-towards the same head. 26. Considering the above observation the award passed by the Learned Tribunal required modification. Assessment of compensation Monthly income 20,000/- + Add 40% future prospects 8,000/- 28,000/- X 12 Yearly income Multiplier 16 3,36,000/- X 16 =53,76,000/- 70% functional disabilities = 37,63,200/- Add medical expenses awarded by the Learned Tribunal + 13,50,000/- = 51,13,200/- Non-pecuniary head awarded by the Learned Tribunal 1,60,000/- 52,73,200/- Additional Non-Pecuniary damages + 50,000/- 53,23,200/- So after calculation the award comes to Rs. 53,23,200/-the award shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application. 27. The claimant has already received 23,50,000/-, so the balance award comes to Rs. 53,23,200/-the award shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application. 27. The claimant has already received 23,50,000/-, so the balance award comes to Rs. 29,73,200/- The Insurance Company is directed to pay a balance awarded sum together with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application within the 06 weeks through the Office of the Learned Registrar General High Court, Calcutta. 28. On such deposit the appellant is at liberty to receive the awarded amount from the office of the Learned Tribunal after satisfying the Office of the Learned Registrar General High Court Calcutta regarding the identification and verification of the appellant as well as the injured. 29. The payment of compensation is subject to ascertainment of payment of deficit Court Fee if any. The Office of the Learned Tribunal shall Act upon certified copy of this order to receive the deficit Court Fee if any 30. The LCR be sent down at once. 31. FMAT (MV) No. 406 of 2022, FMA 55 of 2023 is disposed of. 32. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms and conditions.