5. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties failed to appear in the Court and finally the learned Tribunal proceeded ex- parte. The claimant examined himself and exhibited as many as 55 documents including the accident information report, income certificate, disability certificate, age proof certificate, injury report, cash memos, bills and vouchers and other relevant documents. The disability certificates issued by the department of orthopaedics, Mahendra Mohan Choudhury Hospital and District Social Welfare Office was exhibited as Exhibit-50, which showed that the claimant/appellant was suffering from 40% permanent disability. The income certificate issued by the Circle Officer of Matia Revenue Circle was exhibited as Exhibit-47 showing that the claimant/appellant was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the documents exhibited and the evidences of the claimant/appellant held that the appellant/claimant proved that he spent approximately Rs.39,000/- on account of medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident, however since no doctor has been examined to prove the disability, the question of disability or corresponding loss of earning capacity cannot be decided. The learned trial court therefore awarded Rs.39,000/- on account of medical treatment and Rs.20,000/- for pain shock and suffering thus a total of Rs.59,000/-@ of 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment was awarded to the claimant/appellant.

7. Aggrieved by the less quantum of award, the instant appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. JI Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding the sum of only Rs. 59,000/- which is wholly inadequate and insufficient. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the documents exhibited as evidence by the claimant wherein 40% of permanent disability is proved. He submitted that in even though the doctor who issued the medical certificate was not examined, in view of the the disability certificate issued by the District Social Welfare Office, who is the competent authority to issue such certificates, the presence of the issuing authority and need not be insisted. The learned counsel explained that the authorities who had issued the certificates were not produced because the case had proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties and therefore thought it unnecessary. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., [WP(s)(C) 534/2020], wherein the Apex Court held that disability need not be proved if the disability certificate is issued by the competent authority.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the income certificate of the claimant showing the annual income as Rs.1,20,000/- was also issued by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle and as such, being a document issued by the Government Officer, this document exhibited as Exhibit-47 need not be proved by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 210 which should be considered while commuting the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant.

11. The learned counsel thus submitted that considering the cited judgments of the Apex court, the claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation as below:-

“ Tentative Calculation Computation of Award of Compensation Heads Amount

1. Medical Expenditure- Rs. 39,000/-

2. Future Loss of income due to disability- Rs. 11,42,400/-

3. Attendant Charge- Rs.50,000/-

4. Conveyance, Transportation, nourishing food special diets- Rs.1,00,000/-

5. Pa