Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. : Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the opposite parties inspite of the summons being served.

2. An accident took place on 23rd August, 2005. The claimant, who is a minor, was going to school when the bus driver while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the claimant from the side, which resulted in serious injury to him. The boy was hospitalized and underwent plastic surgery.

3. A claim application was filed by the minor child through his legal guardian namely, the father. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence that was brought on the record, held that the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident causing serious injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal further found that the driver had a valid licence and that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal considered the medical bills, which was produced by the claimant and based on the medical bills gave an award directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 54,000/- alongwith interest @ 7 percent per annum. The insurance company, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the doctor, who had conducted the plastic surgery of the claimant, did not appear before the court and that another person appeared on his behalf holding his power of attorney. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the power of attorney holder could not prove the injury and, therefore, the entire premise of awarding the compensation was patently erroneous and was liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & another 2008(3) T.A.C. 17 (S.C.) in which the Supreme Court held :-

“9. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which is our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.”

5. In the light of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical bills should have been verified by the surgeon who conducted the surgery and the power of attorney holder could not have verified such bills.

6. In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of merit. There is no dispute that the accident did not take place. There is no dispute that the claimant was not injured. There is no dispute that the claimant did not undergo the surgery. The doctor was required to certify the bills, which was incurred towards surgery and other hospitalization charges. It was not necessary that the doctor himself should appear to verify such bills. The power of attorney holder was equally qualified to verify such bills. It would have been a different matter, if the injury was required to be certified by the doctor, which was not the consideration in the presence case. The only purpose of the production of the doc