JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. 1. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by Garlibai, an illiterate, rustic woman aged about 35 years against the award dated 27,4.1998 passed by Addl. Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Sendhwa West Nimad (Distt. Badwani) in Claim Case No. 16/1995. 2. Her case was that on 2.12.1994 she was sitting at the bus stand along with her daughter and son-in-law waiting for bus. At that juncture truck bearing registration No. MP 09-D/4737 driven by the respondent No. 2 Shyam rashly and negligently dashed her while sitting posture, resulting into fracture on her. pelvic bone. She lodged the report at Police Station Pansemal. The police registered the offence under Sections 337 and 297 of I.P.C. and filed charge sheet against the truck driver respondent No. 2 Shyam. The said truck was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. respondent No. 3. She claimed in total Rs. 1,00,000/ - (one lakh) as compensation. Respondents before the Claims Tribunal denied the claim of the appellant. 3. The Claims Tribunal, after examining the claimant Garlibni and her witness P.W. 2 Aap Singh and after perusing the documents filed by her i.e. Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 came to the conclusion that the appellant was unable to prove rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver by adducing reasonable evidence. Claims Tribunal has given finding that the appellant had permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the said accident but did not grant any compensation because of failure to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver respondent No. 2 Shyamlal and granted Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) amount as fixed for no fault liability. This amount was already paid by the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that appellant had failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the driver is contrary to the pleading, evidence and documents available on record. The Claims Tribunal has not considered the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 which are showing registration of the criminal case for rash and negligent driving, causing injuries to the appellant. The Claims Tribunal has not considered the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 which are showing registration of the criminal case for rash and negligent driving, causing injuries to the appellant. These documents have been exhibited in the statement of P.W. 1, therefore, looking to the illiteracy of the appellant-woman, Claims Tribunal should not only have felled upon her statement or statement of her witnesses but should have also considered FIR, MLC report, Map, Seizure etc. vide Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 and should have awarded reasonable compensation for disability sustained by the appellant. 5. None is appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though they are duly served, they are treated ex-parte. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. Swami has contended that the finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper as well as based on material on record, the injured P.W. 1 appellant Garlibai and her witness real son-in-law P.W. 2 Aap Singh have nowhere stated on oath before the Court that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently thereby dashing and causing serious injuries on her person. Merely filing of documents is not sufficient to establish this important ingredient for the purposes of consideration of claim case. 6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant could not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by respondent No. 2. This fact is amply proved by documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 as well as the statements of P.W. 1 Garli Bai and P.W. 2 Aap Singh who have stated that the driver was driving the truck in a high and excessive speed and dashed her while she was sitting at the bus stand waiting for the bus. This situation itself is sufficient to hold that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the sitting woman at the bus stand which is a public place and must be having sufficient crowd over there, the driver should not have driven the vehicle in such a high and excessive speed at such place. The totality of the circumstances are clearly indicating that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The totality of the circumstances are clearly indicating that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Therefore, the finding in this regard arrived, at by Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. Now the question would arise that the appellant is entitled for compensation upto what extent. The appellant has not filed any medical document about her treatment. She has also not examined any medical expert in proving the permanent disability. She has stated in her oral statement before the Court that she incurred Rs. 5 to 6 thousand towards expenses for treatment and she was unable to perform work as labourer which she used to do prior to that accident. Her witness P.W. 2 Aap Singh has stated that at that time labourers used to get Rs. 22/- to 25/- per day as wages. Though the appellant has stated the rate between Rs. 50/- to 60/-, obviously she has exaggerated the same. It was an incident of 1994, at that time women labourers were normally getting Rs. 22/- to 25/- per day. Since there is no material on record for percentage of permanent disability and period of suffering of the appellant because of injuries, it is difficult to assess the compensation amount as per requirement of law, but looking to the finding of Trial Court that she suffered fracture of pelvic bone and permanent disability, this Court deems it just and proper to grant her compensation at least Rs. 50,000/ - (fifty thousand) in total as stated and also mentioned in paragraph 9 of the impugned award she has already received Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as no fault liability now she is entitled for remaining compensation of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) with 9% interest from the date of award i.e. 27.4.1998 till realisation of the compensation amount. Respondents are responsible for this compensation jointly and severally. Since the vehicle is insured there is no dispute, Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit remaining amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with 9% interest within three months from today. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of as indicated above. C.C. within a week.