JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by claimant Tulsiram, who sustained injuries in a motor accident on 31.1.1992, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 24/92. The admitted facts are that on 31.1.1992, jeep No. MP07-M3741 was being driven by Satish Chandra Jain. In this jeep, besides Satishchandra Parmalsingh, Padamsingh and Tulsiram, present appellant, were also sitting. It was coming from Morena to Gwalior. While the jeep was so coming, about two kilometers north near police station Bahodapur, the jeep met with an accident with truck No. DIG 3288. The truck was being driven by Mansingh, respondent No. 1, was owned by Rambahadursingh, respondent No. 2. It was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co., the respondent No. 3. Satishchandra died on the spot. Parmalsingh, Padamsingh and Tulsiram sustained injuries. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It awarded Rs. 5,000/- only as compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant contended that the award is much on the lower side looking to the permanent disability caused to the appellant in the accident. He also contended that receipts Ex. P/5 to P/8 have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Tulsiram was initially admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals at Gwalior. Ex. P/2 is the X-ray report which shows that Tulsiram sustained fractures of 5th, 6th and 7th ribs. Ex. P/3 is X-ray plate. Ex. P/4 is the X-ray report, which shows that the appellant sustained fractures. The appellant was admitted in B.P. Chandak's hospital later on. Appellant placed on record Ex. P/5 to P/8, receipts showing certain payments made by him during the course of treatment. These were proved. The learned counsel appearing for claimant/appellant has argued that strict provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and the procedure is a summary procedure and any document having some probative value and the genuineness of which is not in doubt can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. For this purpose reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in 1990 (1) TAC 642 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Saloni Dargan and others). For this purpose reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in 1990 (1) TAC 642 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Saloni Dargan and others). The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1990 (I) TAC 672 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Devilal and others) for the purpose that bed-head ticket and discharge certificate are public documents, certified copies whereof need not be proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of Tulsiram, appellant. Tulsiram in his statement before the Tribunal has stated that as a result of the accident, his ribs were fractured. He was admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals where X-ray was taken. Thereafter, he was again treated by Dr. Chandak for four days. X-ray was again taken. He remained admitted in Chandak's hospital for four days. He also stated that because of the injuries he could not perform his work in the mine. He was earning Rs. 100/- per day prior to the accident, by working in the mine. He further stated that he stopped working in the mine on account of the injuries suffered. The claimant stated that he spent about Rs. 20-25 thousands in his treatment. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the material on record, in the opinion of the Court, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the statement of the appellant and also the fact that there was no evidence produced by the respondent in rebuttal, ends of justice will serve if a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded on account of medicines, diet, etc. and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of the permanent nature of disability caused to the claimant. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed partly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). This amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. The amount be paid within three months from today, failing which, it will carry penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The appellant is entitled to costs of Rs. 500/-. Before parting, this Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Mahesh Haswani who appeared as amicus curiae. The amount be paid within three months from today, failing which, it will carry penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The appellant is entitled to costs of Rs. 500/-. Before parting, this Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Mahesh Haswani who appeared as amicus curiae. The record of the Tribunal be sent back along with the copy of the order passed by this Court to the District Judge, Gwalior. Certified copy to the parties and typed copy to the amicus curiae.