JUDGMENT By Court.-Admittedly one Smt. Jharna Das, wife of Subhas Das of Salkia, District Howrah (West Bengal) was injured while she was travelling in a bus (WGB 5899) on 4.3.1992, when a truck (BR-15H-2671) dashed it from opposite direction. 2. She filed Claim Case No. 218 of 1992, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was established that driver of the bus, in which claimant was travelling was responsible for the accident and the bus was insured at the relevant time with National Insurance Company limited. 3. In course of hearing of the claim case, claimant failed to produce any medical certificate to show nature and extent of injury sustained by her so as to ascertain whether the said injury caused any permanent disability to her and percentage of such disability. 4. It was claimed on her behalf that she was victim of the accident and was deprived of her daily routine work on account of loss of her efficiency to the extent of 60 per cent. In this regard the Tribunal in paragraph no. 9 of the judgment observed that her claim of loss of efficiency upto 60 per cent did not appear to be reasonable and it has reason to believe that there was loss of 30 per cent of her efficiency in her work on the basis of judicial notice taken by Court and on that basis amount of compensation was calculated. 5. It is well settled that in case of claim in respect of injury sustained in a motor accident the best evidence is of medical witness. The doctor who attended upon the claimant, treated him and prescribed medicines etc. for him is the best person to testify as to whether claimant lad received any injury and, if so, to what extent and as to whether any disablement ""as suffered by him. Evidence of witness is always subject to cross-examination by the other side. 6. In the present case we find that neither any medical witness nor any evidence was produced in support of claimant's contention that she had suffered injury, disablement, loss of efficiency and had also incurred expenditure in treatment of her injury. 7. Evidence of witness is always subject to cross-examination by the other side. 6. In the present case we find that neither any medical witness nor any evidence was produced in support of claimant's contention that she had suffered injury, disablement, loss of efficiency and had also incurred expenditure in treatment of her injury. 7. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and award and remit the matter to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, for taking additional evidence in the light of observations made above and disposal of claim case afresh within two months from the date of receipt of the records. 8. Parties herein undertake to appear before the court concerned on 18th February, 2002. Lower court records may be sent down forthwith by Special Messenger, cost whereof be deposited by appellant by tomorrow. 9. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.