By the Court.—The present First Appeal From Order challenges the validity and correctness of the judgment and award dated 18.5.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 10/2006. The appellant has sought relief for enhancement of compensation as claimed by him to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Special Judge, E.C. Act, Sultanpur, on 9.8.2005 while he was going to Court on his scooter, he met with an accident at about 10.15 a.m. near the entrance gate of the Civil Court. The accident occurred due to collision with the bus bearing registration No. DL IP 6359 owned by Rajendra Vikram Singh. It is alleged that this bus without any passenger driven by Raj Kapoor Mishra had hit the appellant’s scooter from behind near the entrance gate of Civil Court, due to which the appellant fell down with his scooter. Front left wheel of Bus went over the scooter crushing the scooter and causing fracture in the left leg of the claimant-appellant below the knee in Tibia and fibula bones. The FIR of this accident was lodged on the same day at P.S. Kotwali Sultanpur. The police submitted charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 and criminal case is pending in the Court of C.J.M. Sultanpur.

3. The appellant also filed motor accident claim application before the Tribunal at Ghaziabad which was registered as M.A.C.T. Case No. 10 of 2006 against the owner and driver of the bus. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the bus claiming that there is contradiction in the averment made in the claim petition, income, documentary and oral evidence and the circumstances in which the said accident is said to have taken place as well as the extent of permanent disability claimed by the claimant which are to be proved by the him. He also raised the question of jurisdiction on the ground that claim petition has been filed at Ghaziabad though cause of action had arisen at Sultanpur whereas the claimant-appellant resides in his government residence B-11 Officers Colony, Sultanpur.

4. The counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice by his opening sentence that appellant was the judicial officer at the time of accident serving at Sultanpur. It is contended by the claimant-appellant that after his evidence, the date in the M.A.C. Case was fixed for evidence of the opposite parties but they did not produce any evidence. However, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the appellant and awarded inadequate amount of compensation to him amounting to Rs. 65,705/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of issues framed in the petition till the realization from the respondents. Aggrieved by the inadequate award of compensation has filed this appeal for enhancement.

5. The award impugned is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the permanent disability had been caused in the accident, as a result of which his left leg became short by 1.5 inch and in support of his disability the applicant had submitted two medical certificates for establishing the fact that he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% but the Tribunal has completely overlooked to consider one of the medical certificates merely on the ground of being not proved by producing medical officer concerned.

6. It is argued that in the first disability certificate, the disability of the claimant had been shown to be 15% but after removal of plaster the permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 40% regarding which the second medical certificate was issued. However, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the second medical certificate cannot be relied upon as it had not been proved. It is stated that Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Evidence Act provides that documents or records forming acts of a public officer, public documents and contents thereof may be proved by producing their certified c