1. Mr. Amit Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent No. 1

2. Notices on other respondents have been served as per office report dated 21.8.2019 but no one has put in appearance.

3. This First Appeal From Order has been preferred by opposite party No. 2, appellant, Insurance Company against the judgement and award dated 17.11.2018 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/13th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C. Case No. 1248 of 2016 (Smt. Gomti v. Alok Tripathi and Others).

4. The brief facts are that the claimant-respondent No. 1, Smt.Gomti, filed an application under Sections 140/166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs. 23 lacs, along with interest for the injuries suffered by her in the accident dated 3.11.2016.

5. The aforesaid application was registered as M.A.C.Petition No. 1248 of 2016.It was stated therein that on 3.11.2016 claimant was traveling in Vikaram No. U.P.78-BN-4913 along with her family which was hit by car No. U.P. 78DC-1090 from behind at 8.15 hours and the Vikaram dashed against the Loader No. U.P.74-T-2080. The car was being driven very high speed and negligently. The claimant suffered injuries while her brother-in-law and sister-in-law died on the spot. The driver of the Vikaram and another person, Rampal, also got injury.The claimant was healthy and doing business of the fruits prior to the accident. She has become permanently disabled after the accident and needs a helper for performing her routine activities.

6. The owner of the car No. U.P.78DC-1090 and its driver denied that car was being driven rashly and negligently and he further stated that car was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 2, in the claim petition.

7. The National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 2, denied the information of the accident. It was further stated that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured. The driver did not had valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

8. The owners and driver of the loader Vehicle No. U.P. 74T-2080, denied any role of their vehicle in the accident and stated that accident was caused because of rash and negligently driving of car No. U.P. 78-DC-1090.

9. The appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 6,the insurer of loader Vehicle No. U.P. 74-T-2080, took the plea that it has no information of the accident. The violation of the terms of policy have taken place and the driver of the vehicle did not had valid driving licence at the time of accident.

10. The Tribunal after going through the evidence on record found that the accident in dispute took place on account of contributory negligence of the car No. U.P. 78- DC-1090 and loader No. U.P. 74 T-2080 and directed that the Insurance Companies of both the vehicles would be liable to make payment of 50% compensation each to the claimant.The total amount of awarded was Rs. 7,03,771 by the award dated 17.11.2018 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

11. This appeal has been preferred by New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of the loader vehicle No. 74T-2080, on the ground that disability certificate certifying 50 percent disability of the claimant has been issued by Dr. Avatar Singh, Orthopedic Surgeon and not by the medical board.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the disability certificate which was filed in evidence before the Tribunal from the record.

13. A Perusal of the same shows that Dr. Avatar Singh, Ortho. Surgeon, Handicapped Board, Office of C.M.O. Kanpur Nagar, has issued disability certificate. On the top of the disability certificate stamp has been affixed showing certificate to be issued Handicapped Board , Office of C.M.O., Kanpur Nagar.

14. Learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 has stated that the disability certificate was issued by the medical board and not by individual. Although it was signed by Ortho. Surgeon but it was the certificate issued on behalf of the medical board.

15. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties,this Court is of the view that the disability certificate of the

claimant was issued by the board and not by individual doctor. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has considered the disability certificate which was filed before it and being public document it relied upon the same and awarded compensation. 16. The appellant has failed to make out any good ground for setting aside the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 17. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.