Honble YADAV, J.–The present appeal has been filed against the Award dated 23.9.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with costs and interest and fixing the liability of appellant M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited upto extent of Rs. 20,000/- with interest. (2). Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 30.1.1970, at about 7.30 PM, the claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash was returning to his houseat Nohra No.80 Lakkar Mandi, Sri Ganganagar from his shop situated in Pratap Market. He was holding bicycle in his hand and he was going on foot on Krishna Talkies Road, Sri Ganganagar. He had a bag containing Receipt Books of Saraswati Shishu Mandir etc. in it. When he reached on the crossing of the roads known as Krishna Talkies and Gaushala Road and took a turn towards north to his left on hisway back home, Manjeet Singh (opposite party No. 3 driver now dead) came from behind driving Truck No. RJK 3292 with Hukam Chandra (opposite party no. 5) by his side and dashed the truck against him, so that, he may be run away. Due to providential escape, he was saved but his bicycle was crushed under the wheel of the truck. Still the truck driver opposite party No.3 continued chasing the petitionerfor some distance till his left arm got entangled with the iron shaft on the right side of the bumper of the truck. Opposite party No.3 took advantage of the above situation and with an intention to commit murder of the petitioner immediately acclerated the speed of the truck at a dangerous rate. The truck from the said crossing to the Station road, wherefrom it again turned towards his right side anddrove fast all along the road in front of Ganganagar Ginning Mill and passing through Sabji Mandi crossing went straight on the Gaushala Road on way to Suratgarh. The claimant-respondent No.1 was crying for help. He ultimately fell down some five to six miles away from the city of Ganganagar on Suratgarh road and rolled down in the pit nearby. It is alleged that a large number of passers by on the route of theTruck witnessed this accident and raised considerable alarm; to stop the truck to save the life of claimant-respondent No.1. The matter was reported to police station Kotwali on phone. It is alleged that a large number of passers by on the route of theTruck witnessed this accident and raised considerable alarm; to stop the truck to save the life of claimant-respondent No.1. The matter was reported to police station Kotwali on phone. It is alleged that police party including Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shri Raghubir Singh, Sub Inspector, Kotwali Shri Surja Ram, Asstt. Sub Inspector Shri Ranjeet Singh and Sub Inspector Shri Ram Dayal etc.immediately chased the truck No. RJK 3292 in hot pursuit with their jeeps. After chasing about 20 miles from Ganganagar, the police party succeeded to catch the truck by blocking its way with their jeeps but the truck abruptly turned round and got the speed fast back towards Ganganagar and did not care to give any side to the jeeps following it. Ultimately, while entering in Ganganagar City, the police partyat their grave personal risk over-took the truck and blocked its route by putting a police jeep in front of it. Ultimately, brought the truck to a halt and opposite party No.3 was found sitting at the steering of the truck. Claimant-respondent No.1 was picked up from the pit by one of the police jeep chasing truck No. RJK 3292. (3). Claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash was admitted in the State Hospi-tal, Sri Ganganagar as an Indoor patient where he was treated upto 10.3.70 but inspite of two blood transfusions and other medicines prescribed, his condition was deteriorating fast and therefore, Dr. Gehlot referred the case of claimant- respondent No.1 to a Senior doctor at PBM General Hospital, Bikaner on 10.3.70. As claimant-respondent No.1 was not able to bear strain of journey, therefore, hewas compelled to be admitted on 15.3.70 as an Indoor patient and continued as indoor patient till 17.5.70 when he was discharged with the instruction to report after one month. Thus, it is alleged that claimant- respondent No.1 remained confined to bed for more than five months during which, he suffered from high temperature, great physical, mental pain and agony and at some time hysterical fits of mental imbalance. (4). It is averred in the claim petition that claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash is well versed in the cloth business and in keeping the business accounts. (4). It is averred in the claim petition that claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash is well versed in the cloth business and in keeping the business accounts. At the time of accident, he was working as working partner having 1/4th share with Gulab Rai Lila in M/s. Birdhi Chand Badri Prasad, Pratap Market, Sri Ganganagar. The work of the firm was wholly dependent on him and the firm was earning Rs. 26,000/- per year. The claimant-respondent No.1 before accident possessed good physique and sound health. (5). Initially, claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash claimed Rs. 70,855.13 ascompensation from the appellant and other opposite- parties arrayed in his claim petition but subsequently his right leg was amputated. After imputation of his right leg, claimant- respondent No.1 amended his claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar and claimed Rs. 1,20,855.13 as compensation. (6). On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as nine issues. The claimant-respondent No.1 examined Dr. Tuhi Ram as PW 1, Dr.Vijay Bhushan Kalra as PW 2, himself as PW 3, Dr. Moman Ram as PW 4, Dr. Nawal Kishore as PW 5 and Abdul Aziz as PW 6. (7). In support of his claim petition, claimant-respondent No.1 has filed admi-ssion slip of Government Hospital Ex.1, Bed-head Ticket Ex.2, FIR Ex.3, Re-admission slip Ex.5, amputation of his right leg Ex.6 and site-plan Ex.6A. In rebuttal, Kishan Lal was examined as DW 1 by the owner of the Truck and Rajendra Kumar was examined as D.W. 2 by the appellant-M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited. (8). After discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunalhas awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation with 9% interest with effect from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70. Out of Rs. 30,000/-, the compensation awarded to claimant-respondent No.1, liability of appellant was found to be limited upto Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, Rs. 20,000/- compensation was made payable by the appellant to claimant- respondent No.1 with 9% interest from the date of institutionof claim petition i.e. 23.7.70. The remaining amount was made payable by respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The driver of the Truck involved in the accident namely Manjeet Singh was found to be dead by the Tribunal, hence no liability of compensation was fastened on him. (9). I have heard learned counsel Mr. The remaining amount was made payable by respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The driver of the Truck involved in the accident namely Manjeet Singh was found to be dead by the Tribunal, hence no liability of compensation was fastened on him. (9). I have heard learned counsel Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit holding brief ofMr.N.P. Gupta appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel Mr. R.K. Singhal appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash. (10). Irrespective of sufficient service on respondent No.2 to 4, neither the respondents are present personally nor they have engaged any counsel to do pairvi on their behalf, hence, this Court has no alternative except to proceed exparte againstthem. (11). Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. H.K. Purohit urged before me that as rash and negligent driving of the truck has not been pleaded in the claim petition, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation in absence of pleadings about rash and negligent driving of Truck No. RJK 3292. I am not satisfied with theargument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons given hereinbelow. (12). I am of the view that strict rules of pleadings are not applicable in claim petitions filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals by the claimants although the opposite parties are required to plead their specific defence availableto them. I am further of the view that even if rash and negligent driving is not averred in a claim petition yet it can be inferred from the attending facts and circumstances borne out from the record of each case and also from the evidence adduced by the claimant or claimants as the case may be. The oral and documentary evidence on record in the present case leads towards an irresistible conclusion that unfortunate accident has occured due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. RJK 3292. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is established beyond all shadow of doubt that the present accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck driver Manjeet Singh. The finding of rash and negligent driving of truck driver recorded by the Tribunal is based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. (13). There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The finding of rash and negligent driving of truck driver recorded by the Tribunal is based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. (13). There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. Today the judicial authorities have laid down almost unanimously that there are caseswhere accident speaks itself. In such cases, it is sufficient for the claimant to prove accident and nothing more and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are expected to extend principle of res ipsa loguitur (See Pushpa Bai Purshottam Udesh vs. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Company Limited (1). When this principle is applied, the burden shifts upon the opposite parties. From the evidence on record, I am satisfiedthat the appellants and respondents No.2 to 4 and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident have miserably failed to discharge the burden by proving that they were not negligent. (14). As liability of the appellant was limited upto Rs. 20,000/- on the date of accident under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1939, therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error in awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- against the appellant. The award given against the appellant is eminently just and proper but as regards payment of interest, it is found to be inadequate. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70 instead of gran-ting 9% interest upto payment of award so awarded. (15). Claimant-respondent has filed a cross-objection, which deserves to be allowed in the present case against the appellant upto extent of enhancing the interest in place of 9% to 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70 upto payment of award so awarded by the Tribunal. The remai-ning award against the appellant is hereby affirmed. (16). Claimant-respondent has filed a cross-objection, which deserves to be allowed in the present case against the appellant upto extent of enhancing the interest in place of 9% to 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70 upto payment of award so awarded by the Tribunal. The remai-ning award against the appellant is hereby affirmed. (16). I propose to examine the facts and circumstances of the present claim petition against respondents No. 2 and 3 as envisaged under O. 41 R. 33 CPC, which provides that appellate court shall have power to pass decree and make any order which ought to have passed or made and to pass or make such further or otherdecree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. (17). In exercise of the aforesaid power as envisaged under O. 41, R. 33, CPC.,I think it just and proper to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against respondents No.2 and 3 in the present case. (18). It is borne out from the record that claimant-respondent No.1 has claimed Rs. 3,250/- as loss of his earning for the period he was hospitalised, Rs. 5,205/- as medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability and amputationof his right leg. There is no whisper in the Award by the Tribunal as to why claimant-respondent No.1 has not been awarded loss of earning for the period he was hospitalised as Indoor patient. There is oral evidence of PW 3 Om Prakash claimant on record which supports the loss of income of Rs. 3,000/- suffered by him for the period he was hospitalised as indoor patient. From admission slip of Govern-ment Hospital Ex.1, Bed-head Ticket Ex.2, Re-admission slip Ex.5 and also from amputation of his right leg Ex.6, it is established that claimant-respondent No.1 Om Prakash remained bed ridden for more than five months as indoor patient. Thus, loss of income suffered by the claimant-respondent No.1 amounting to Rs. 3,000/- deserves to be allowed. (19). The claimant-respondent No.1 has claimed Rs. Thus, loss of income suffered by the claimant-respondent No.1 amounting to Rs. 3,000/- deserves to be allowed. (19). The claimant-respondent No.1 has claimed Rs. 5,205/- as medical expenses but his claim for compensation for medical expenses have been refused by the Tribunal simply on the ground that claimant-respondent No.1 could not be able to produce vouchers for the purchase of medicine as proof of medical expenses incurred by him. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has mis-directed itself in denying medical expenses to claimant- respondent No.1 simply because he could not be able to produce vouchers in support of the medical expenses incurred by him during the period he was confined to bed as an indoor patient in Government hospital of Sri Ganganagar and then thereafter to PBM Hospital Bikaner for treat-ment. It is also borne out from the record that claimant-respondent No.1 was admitted in Government hospital Sri Ganganagar on 23.1.70 and remained there under treatment upto 10.3.70. Thereafter he was again admitted in the Private Nursing Home of Dr. Mahobia wherefrom he was shifted to PBM Hospital, Bikaner and was admitted on 15.3.70 as indoor patient and remained under treatment upto17.5.70. He was discharged from PBM Hospital, Bikaner with a direction to report after one month. (20). It must be imbibed that for proving the medical expenses incurred by claimant-respondent No.1, the production of medical vouchers are not the only mode of its proof. To my mind, the medical expenses can also be proved by oralevidence provided such ordal evidence inspires confidence of the Tribunal. In the present case, the oral evidence of PW 3 Om Prakash to the effect that he incurred expenses between Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4,000/- as medical expenses inspire my confidence. P.W. 3 Om Prakash was put to searching cross-examination by the owner of the Truck respondents No.2 and 3 but nothing has been brought out to discredithis oral testimony. In such a situation, it would be proper to award Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by him. (21). It is well to remember in this regard that while awarding compensation to the claimants, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are judicial instruments and it can not afford to revel against realism denying reasonable medical expenses merelyon technical considerations of non production of medical vouchers ignoring behavioural probabilities in medical treatment together with attending circumstances in the light of the oral evidence. (22). (22). Next question, which is of paramount consideration in the present case whether the claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled to claim Rs. 50,000/- as compensa-tion for amputation of his right leg leading to his permanent disability. The Tribunal has refused to award compensation for amputation of right leg of claimant- respondent No.1 causing permanent disability to him because there was no link evidence to establish that amputation of his right leg was the direct result of the injuries recei- ved by him in the accident. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral testi-mony of Dr. Vijai Bhushan Kalra (PW 2), Dr. Moman Ram (PW 4), and Dr. Nawal Kishore (PW 5). (23). It goes without saying that the aforesaid witnesses are independent witnesses, hence, the Tribunal was required to analyse their statements on oath after applying its judicial mind in its totality not in isolation. The finding given by theTribunal regarding the fact that amputation was not the direct and approximate result of the injuries received by the claimant- respondent No.1 in the year 1970 is based on mis-appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimant in suport of his claim. Dr. Nawal Kishore (PW 5) who had performed operation amputating the right leg of claimant-respondent No.1 has categorically stated on oath that the disease whichnecessitated the amputation could develop even after many years of receiving of the injuries. If claimant-respondent No.1 did not get himself admitted in the year 1974 as per doctors advice as held by the Tribunal it will not mean that he himself was responsible for contracting the disease which resulted in the amputation of his right leg. After all, to get the leg amputated is a serious matter and is resorted to only as a measure of last resort. Thus, the Tribunal has wrongly disallowed the compensation to claimant-respondent No.1 for amputation of his right leg leading to his permanent disability. (24). Now time is ripe to consider the quantum of compensation to claimant-respondent No.1 for amputation of his right leg leading to his permanent disability. Claimant-respondent No.1 has claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for his permanent disability. To my mind, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by claimant-respondent No.1 on this score is excessive. Looking to the facts and circumstancesof the present case, I think it just and proper to award Rs. Claimant-respondent No.1 has claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for his permanent disability. To my mind, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by claimant-respondent No.1 on this score is excessive. Looking to the facts and circumstancesof the present case, I think it just and proper to award Rs. 10,000/- compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1 towards his permanent disability caused by amputation of his right leg which was direct and proximate result of the injuries received by him in the year 1970 in the accident. (25). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by appellant M/s.New India Assurance Company Limited is dismissed and cross-objection; is partly allowed granting 12% interest per annum to claimant-respondent No.1 in place of 9% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70 upto payment of award by the appellant. With the aforesaid modification the award given by the Tribunal against the appellant on 23.9.86 is hereby affirmed. (26). The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal against respondents No.2 and 3 is hereby enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 26,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 23.7.70 upto payment of award awarded today. The award under appeal is modified accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.