ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 18.07.2002 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No.294/2001, whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant-claimant for compensation on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, which occurred on 04.02.1998, has been partly allowed. 3. Briefly noted facts in the present appeal are that on 04.02.1998 the appellant while going on his Vicky (moped) bearing registration No. RJ-09-M-7698 met with an accident with a private bus bearing registration No. RJ-09-P-255 coming from opposite direction. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the appellant incurred 40% disability. The certificate of permanent disability has been placed on record. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the learned MACT, Chittorgarh, which was decided vide Judgment and Award dated 18.07.2002 and a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,82,500/- was awarded in favour of the appellant. 4. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal and has canvased before this Court that the findings of the issue Nos.1 and 3 have erroneously been recorded to the extent that the learned tribunal has not agreed to the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board declaring the appellant to be 40% permanently disabled was required to be considered by the learned tribunal. However, the tribunal has not recorded any finding as to why it refused to consider the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Learned counsel further submits that in light of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. Rambabu Saini & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 180 , the tribunal had no option, but to rely upon the medical certificate produced before the tribunal declaring the permanent disability of the appellant. He submits that if the tribunal had any reason to doubt on the medical certificate issued by the competent Medical Board, then the same could have been reassessed, but it was not within the domain of the tribunal to out rightly refuse to consider the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. 6. He submits that if the tribunal had any reason to doubt on the medical certificate issued by the competent Medical Board, then the same could have been reassessed, but it was not within the domain of the tribunal to out rightly refuse to consider the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. 6. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is entitled for the compensation for the permanent disability suffered by him in accordance with RSLSA Guidelines, 2024. He, therefore, submits that the present appeal may be allowed, and the appellant only to the extent of permanent disability, be awarded compensation in accordance with the RSLSA Guidelines, 2024, while maintaining compensation awarded by the tribunal against the other heads. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant is not entitled for grant of any compensation towards the permanent disability suffered by him as the appellant was a Government Servant and there was no loss of income to the appellant. He submits that RSLSA Guidelines, 2024 are primarily applicable in case where, on account of certain injuries, a person has suffered the loss of income and, therefore in the present case, the said guidelines are not applicable and the appellant is not entitled for any compensation towards the permanent disability suffered by him. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned Judgment and Award dated 18.07.2002. 9. In the present case, the factum of the accident has not been disputed and the fact that the appellant was a Government Servant is also not in disput. The learned tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of the disability suffered by the appellant and has failed to take into consideration the certificate issued by the Medical Board, projecting the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 40%. The findings on issue Nos.1 & 3 recorded by the tribunal appears to be erroneous as no reasoning has been given by the tribunal for not relying upon the certificate issued by the Medical Board declaring the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 40%. 10. The findings on issue Nos.1 & 3 recorded by the tribunal appears to be erroneous as no reasoning has been given by the tribunal for not relying upon the certificate issued by the Medical Board declaring the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 40%. 10. In the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in Prakash Chand Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the permanent disability certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board is required to be accepted by the tribunal, unless the Tribunal, upon reassessment and re- determination, concludes that the certificate issued by the Medical Board is incorrect. Where no such reassessment or re- determination is undertaken, there is no reason for the tribunal to take a different view from the one mentioned in the certificate issued by the Medical Board. It is, therefore, held that the disability suffered by the appellant in the present case is to be assessed at 40% in view of the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board. 11. Coming to the assessment of compensation on account of the permanent disability incurred in the present case, this Court is firmly of the view that such compensation must be assessed in accordance with the RSLSA Guidelines, 2024, as there is no provision excluding a Government Servant from claiming compensation for permanent disability suffered in an accident. 12. The RSLSA Guidelines, 2024 have been framed after taking into consideration relevant factors, including judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and various other Courts. The scheme does not differentiate for awarding compensation between a Government Servant and a person who is privately employed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that for the purpose of assessing compensation on account of the disability incurred in an accident the guidelines of 2024 are very much applicable irrespective of the fact whether the injured person is a Government Servant or privately employed. Since, a person, who has become physically incapacitated on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, cannot be deprived of compensation merely on basis of the nature of his employment, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, RSLSA Guidelines being a beneficial legislation are applicable not only over the Government Servant but also to the private employee. Since, a person, who has become physically incapacitated on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, cannot be deprived of compensation merely on basis of the nature of his employment, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, RSLSA Guidelines being a beneficial legislation are applicable not only over the Government Servant but also to the private employee. In the present case, since the appellant was a Government Servant and has incurred a disability to the extent of 40%, the compensation is required to be computed and awarded in terms of Clause - C of the RSLSA Guidelines, 2024. 13. It has also come on record that, on account of the injuries sustained, the appellant remained hospitalized for a period of 70 days. The Discharge Certificate (Ex.109) has been placed on record, which confirms his hospitalization for 70 days. Therefore, the appellant is also entitled to compensation under the head of hospitalization. 14. Since the medical expenses incurred in the case has already been awarded by the learned tribunal, therefore, he is not entitled for re-assessment of the same. 15. In view of the disability certificate available on record and injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant, he is entitled to compensation, as per the RSLSA guidelines, 2024, which is recomputed as under:- (I) The appellant has suffered disability to the tune of 40% therefore, as per RSLSA Guidelines, amount of Rs.35,000/- + 2,20,00/- (i.e. 5,500 x 40) for the disability suffered Rs. 2,55,000/- (II) Hospitalization (600 x 70 days) Rs. 42,000/- Total Rs. 2,97,000/- 16. Accordingly, the appeal merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondent – United India Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs.2,97,000/- (Rupees: Two Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Only) to the appellant in addition to whatever has been awarded by the learned tribunal in its Judgment and Award dated 18.07.2002 within a period of four weeks from today and this enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 3% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the same is paid.