JUDGMENT
Elepi Dharma Rao, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-1991 in O.P. No. 673 of 1989 on the file of the Chairman (Addl. Dist. Judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rangareddy at Saroornagar, under which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 34,700/- towards the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18-6-1989 at about 8-30 p.m. when the petitioner was coming on his scooter bearing No. AHO-4455 and when he reached near Chaitanyapuri Bridge, a lorry bearing No. ATS-7375 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner from behind; due to the impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained fracture of both pubic bones, hairline fracture, left calcencus, fracture of lateral malleolus (left), crush injuries on left thigh, right elbow, left heel, testicular atrophy and laceration of right scottle sock exposing the testicles. The petitioner is an Orthopaedic Surgeon and he was in hospital for three months and was advised rest for further period of three months and was unable to attend to his duties for six months. The petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
3. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the second respondent by filing counter denying the driving of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The company further pleaded that the liability of the company is strictly according to the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The Tribunal examined the petitioner as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is the doctor, who treated the petitioner and marked Exs. A-1 to A-13. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and as such the insured and the insurer are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
5. With regard to the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner, the Tribunal has examined P.W. 2, Dr. A. Srinivas Rao, an Orthopaedic Surgeon and who treated the petitioner. After analysing the evidence of P.W. 2, the Tribunal awarded loss of earnings at Rs. 10,000/- assessing his earnings at Rs. 2,500/- per month for four months during which period the petitioner was under treatment. The petitioner filed Exs. A-12 and A-13, certificate issued by Apollo Hospital Dt. 12-4-1991 and Sri Padmavathi Orthopaedic and Surgical Clinic to show that he was a consultant and consultation fee was paid to the petitioner. But he failed to file certificate of income derived by him as Orthopaedic Surgeon. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was an income-tax assessee, and he has not filed Income-tax returns for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 to assess his monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs. 2,500/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for four months towards loss of earnings during the period of his treatment.
6. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Towards the continuing permanent disability, the petitioner claimed Rs. 1,27,000/-. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that he assessed the disability at 70%. The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the petitioner and held that the injuries caused to the petitioner do not constitute permanent disability, more so to the right elbow. Hence, the Tribunal, in all, granted a sum of Rs. 34,700/-to the petitioner.
7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 2,500/- when he was working as a Consultant Surgeon in Orthopaedics and the Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding compensation for loss of income from the date of accident to the trial. In his support, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhagwandas v. Mohd, Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 for fixation of loss of earning during the post-trial period and for application of multiplier for permanent disability. The said submissions were rejected by the Tribunal below on the ground that the petitioner had the best evidence to substantiate his income but has failed to do so by filing the necessary documents. Therefore, the Tribunal, on a guess work, has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 2,500/-. Therefore, I agree with the Tribunal in this regard. When the petitioner is claiming compensation, the burden lies on him to prove his income which he gets from the profession, that too when the petitioner is not an illiterate. He is a Post-Graduate Specialist in Orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, the non-filing of the documentary evidence i.e., the returns for the period from 1989-90 and 1990-91, establishes that the petitioner has not filed those documents with a mala fide intention not to disclose his income, to fix the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the learned Chairman, has rightly fixed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 2,500/- per month and awarded the compensation, as per his eligibility and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has failed to make out any case for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.