The main legal point established is the application of the statutory formula for calculating compensation in non-fatal accidents and the aim of the claims Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The appellant has challenged the award dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 61,000/-for 25% permanent disability suffered by the appellant in a road accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.1996 when the appellant was travelling in a tanker, on National Highway No. 12, a truck, bearing Registration No. RJ 26-G221, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the tanker. Because of the said accident, the appellant suffered a fracture of left leg, the left hand and also sustained injuries on his fingers, the hand and the heel. He also sustained three stitches on his eye-brow and 10-12 stitches on his head. According to the disability certificate issued by the doctor he had suffered 25% of permanent disability. In order to receive some compensation, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case the appellant examined himself as a witness and submitted twenty-two documents. The non-claimants neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant the compensation as aforementioned. Since, the appellant is still not satisfied with the said award, he has filed this appeal before us.

3. According to Mr. Sandeep Mathur, the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellants left leg has been shortened by four centimeters. For the rest of his life, he would have to limp while walking. His permanent disability, as stated above, is 25%. According to the learned Counsel Item 5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act, for short) prescribes a formula for calculating the compensation in case of non-fatal accidents. In case the said formula were applied the actual income loss would have to be multiplied by multiplier of 18. But the said formula has not been applied by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has failed to apply proper provision of law.

4. On the other hand, Mrs. Archana Mantri, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company the Respondent No. 3, has argued that the disability certificate submitted by the appellant has been signed by a single doctor. The said disability certificate has not been issued by a Medical Board as required by law. Moreover, no evidence has been shown about the income of the appellant. With regard to the application of the formula given in Item 5 of the Second Schedule, she has no answer.

5. In rejoinder, Mr. Mathur has submitted that according to the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 there is no requirement that the physical disability certificate should be issued by a Medical Board. In fact, a proforma given in the said Rules merely states that it can be given by a Government doctor. According to Exhibit -12, the medical certificate, the said certificate was issued by a Medical Officer Dr. R.S. Gupta. Therefore, the medical certificate is in conformity with the rules. Furthermore, he has argued that the claimant himself had stated that he was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month. In fact in his cross-examination, the appellant had explained the source of his income. According to the appellant he was selling vegetables daily which he would take from his village to be sold at Delhi. He was also engaged as a labourer in his free time. Therefore, he clearly justifies his income. The Insurance Company has not brought any evidence on record to contradict the appellants testimony on this point.

6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned award.

7. The proforma attached with the rules, clearly shows that the medical certificate can be issued by a single Government doctor Exhbiit-12 has been issued by Dr. R.S. Gupta, a Medical Officer and a Junior Specialist in Orthopedics. According to the said c