JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal, filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against Award dated 17.5.1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 4/80. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant-claimant was posted as Lady Assistant Surgeon in the District Hospital, Jhabua. The matrix as regards occurrence of accident in particularised in next paragraph. 3. On 11.9.1980 at about 12.00 noon she returned from Indore by bus and got down at die bus-station, Jhabua. Therefrom she was going to her residence situated in the campus of the hospital. On die way, the respondent No. 1, Divisional Engineer, MPEB Dhar drove Jeep No. CPF 7945 rashly and negligently and hit the goat. The goat was killed. Soon thereafter, the respondent No. 1 hit the appellant and as a result of this accident, she sustained fracture on her left leg and also received six other injuries. The appellant was treated as Jhabua Hospital. Her left leg was plastered and the appellant was confined to bed for three weeks and had to be away from duty for about a month. She filed the application for claim on 4.2.1980 claiming the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respondents denied the liability and pleaded their impeccability. After recording of evidence, the learned Member of die Tribunal awarded me damage of Rs. 800/- only together with interest at die rate of Rs. 6% per annum on this amount. Aggrieved by this Award, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal and claimed enhancement in the quantum only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. I have heard Sh. Ashok Kutumbale learned Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Anil Goyal learned Counsel for the responds No. 3 (Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited, Indore) and have perused the record. None appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sh. Ashok Kutumbale submits that the Award was too low and the finding as regards the absence of fracture was clearly vitiated. On the other hand, Sh. Anil Goyal submitted that the finding was correctly reworded sad the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. This appeal has been preferred on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 6. The appellant (PW 1) deposed on oath that she sustained as many as seven injuries in the alleged accident. On the other hand, Sh. Anil Goyal submitted that the finding was correctly reworded sad the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. This appeal has been preferred on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 6. The appellant (PW 1) deposed on oath that she sustained as many as seven injuries in the alleged accident. One of these injuries were grievous in nature. X-rays were taken. Fracture in leg was confirmed by the second X-ray which was taken after two days. The entire leg was plastered. The claimant was confined to bed for three weeks. Pain persisted even thereafter. Fast movement was impaired. Leave was taken. Loss of practice was suffered. PW 2 Dr. Daulal Gupta proved material facts like X-ray certificate (Ex. P/17), factum of plaster, confinement to bed and injuries attributable to the accident. The bodily injuries were caused by the jeep of me respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which was driven by the respondent No. 1, the Divisional Engineer, MPEB at the relevant time. 7. Although die Tribunal held, on evaluation of the evidence on issue No. 2, that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, yet it concluded, without justification, that the allegation of fracture was a concocted piece and X-ray report in support thereof was a creation for the purpose of claim case. It is noticeable that the proved facts of plaster and confinement to bed for the stated duration did not receive proper attention and appreciation. One may legitimately pose a question as to why would plaster be necessary and why would the claimant be ridden if there was no fracture at all? The conclusion is, thus, not on firm foundation and seems to be marred by apparent vitiation. 8. The record discloses that the assertions of fracture and plaster were not even seriously assailed in the cross-examination of the claimant. The existence of the bodily injury was thus fully established. In K.K. Jain and Anr. v. Smt. Masroor Anwar 1989 MPLJ 690 it is held that: Needless to say that in the hands of the adversary in the weapon of cross-examination to test the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness in examination-in-chief. The existence of the bodily injury was thus fully established. In K.K. Jain and Anr. v. Smt. Masroor Anwar 1989 MPLJ 690 it is held that: Needless to say that in the hands of the adversary in the weapon of cross-examination to test the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness in examination-in-chief. If a witness, therefore, is not cross-examined on any material point deposed to by him in examination-in-chief, the necessary interference is that the adversary does not mean to challenge that version given by the witness in examination-in-chief. In that event, the version so given by the witness in examination-in-chief must be accepted as truthful. 9. In my view, the Tribunal, in estimation of damages, ought to have taken into consideration also factors like, (a) pain and suffering due to plaster which the claimant had undergone; (b) subsequent pain and impairment in fast movement; (c) loss of practice; and (d) confinement to bed-once it was held that the accident took place due to negligence of the respondent No. 1. 10. I have, thus, scrutinised the entire evidential material in its proper perspective and find that me Tribunal misread and mis-appreciated evidence and thus reached a wrong conclusion and recorded perverse finding. The conclusion as regards falsity of fracture was, must, clearly subvertible. The contention was not liable to be negatived on surmises, conjectures and maybes as noticed above. It is, thus, a case where right claim was wrongly rejected and needs to be corrected. The submission of the respondent No. 3 in oppugnation, is thus found to be non-meritorious. The plea for enhancement is holy, not hollow. 11. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and Ors. , it is pointed out that- Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on me doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances there it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. 12. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances there it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. 12. Realities have to be noticed and narrated and justice is to be done. How can one be denied ones due? An inscription on the wall of Harvard Law School Library proclaims- Suum Cunique tribute The meaning is simple. Law casts an obligation to 'render each his due'. The object behind the benevolent Act like Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate the victim of accident. And this is not achieved by decreeing an meagre amount as Rs. 800/-. This is hardly the way to wipe the tear from the eye. Law must go to the eye and treat human beings with due sense of dignity. It is apt to recall the words of Emerson- Let law treat men and women well, treat them as if they were real, perhaps they are. 13. In the ultimate analysis, taking an overall view of the evidence, I, thus, hold that the appellant-claimant is entitled to be paid lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 4.2.1980 i.e. the date of application before Claim Tribunal until payment. 14. The amount of compensation payable by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, is thus enhanced from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 10,000/- and the rate of interest is increased from the level of 6% pa to 9% p.a. The Award, thus, stands modified accordingly. The respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) is, however, specified as the party primarily liable to discharge this liability of compensation. 15. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 250/- if certified. Memo of costs be prepared. 16. Record of the Court below is directed to be returned alongwith the copy of this order.