S. S. JHA AND S. SAMVATSAR, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition. Appellant contended that he was travelling in a bus bearing No. MPH 845 owned by respondent No. 2. He was travelling from village kitora to Morar. The bus overturned between village Utila and Bancha and he suffered serious injuries. He has suffered fracture on the left shoulder and in the left palm. He was admitted in J. A. Group of hospitals and discharged from the hospital. In para 6 of the petition, he has mentioned that he has suffered fracture on three points. He had claimed compensation of rs. 1,58,000. The owner and driver of the vehicle after service have not appeared before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte. Insurance company has filed their reply. ( 2 ) AW 1 categorically deposed that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into overturning of the bus and caused injuries to him. He was admitted in the J. A. Group of Hospitals for three days and was under treatment of Dr. Maheshwari and Dr. Purohit for about six months. He has deposed that he could not work on account of injuries for a period of six months. He has spent Rs. 10,000 on medicines and further spent Rs. 10,000 on the special diet. In para 5 of the deposition, he has stated that his income was Rs. 2,000 per month. He was not cross-examined about his income. AW 2, Dr. Badri Prasad Purohit, has deposed that he had examined the injured on 25. 1. 1989 and there was a fracture in the 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs. He was bandaged for a period of five weeks. He contacted the doctor on 6. 4. 1989 and complained about pain in shoulder and chest. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that none of the witnesses has stated that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1. In the absence of mentioning the name of driver, it is not established that vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 Ram Babu Kamariya. Claims Tribunal further recorded a finding that since F. I. R. lodged before police and the challan papers of police have not been filed, therefore, claimants' claim application cannot be allowed. In the absence of mentioning the name of driver, it is not established that vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 Ram Babu Kamariya. Claims Tribunal further recorded a finding that since F. I. R. lodged before police and the challan papers of police have not been filed, therefore, claimants' claim application cannot be allowed. Claims Tribunal has also recorded a finding that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle under employment of the respondent No. 2 and further held that vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Findings recorded by Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to evidence on record. In the absence of any written statement by driver and owner of the vehicle it demonstrates that driver and owner of the vehicle had decided not to oppose the application and admitted the averments of the application. AW 1 Lalloo Ram categorically stated that he was driver in bus No. MPH 845 and tribunal has recorded specific finding in para 7 of the award that bus was owned by respondent No. 2 Balkar Singh and the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the overall evidence on record, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any cross-examination on the deposition of Lalloo Ram that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in the absence of any specific evidence on record, we hold that bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As regards finding that name of driver is not mentioned in the deposition of the appellant Lalloo ram and the finding that it is not established that vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1, is also perverse. Owner has not entered the witness-box and deposed that vehicle was not driven by respondent No. 1. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence of appellant Lalloo Ram, it can safely be held that vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 1. In claim petitions, it is not mandatory to file copy of the documents pertaining to criminal cases and failure to produce challan papers or copy of F. I. R. will not be sufficient to dismiss the claim petition. The documents may be necessary for decision of the case but non-filing of the documents will not result into automatic dismissal of the claim petition. The documents may be necessary for decision of the case but non-filing of the documents will not result into automatic dismissal of the claim petition. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, challan papers and f. I. R. filed before the police are not material documents. At the most the documents can be corroborative piece of evidence and nothing more. In the light of evidence of aw 2, Dr. Badri Prasad Purohit, it is established that the appellant has suffered injuries. Claims Tribunal has simply presumed that after the injury his discharge from hospital is not possible. It may be mentioned that in the case of fracture in ribs it is not necessary to keep patient in the hospital. After initial bandage appellant was discharged after 2 days from the hospital. From this statement it cannot be said that the appellant was not admitted in the hospital. Non-filing of X-ray report will not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. Doctor has entered the witness-box and he was cross-examined. AW 2 Dr. Badri Prasad Purohit has categorically deposed that appellant has suffered injuries and he has treated him. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondent insurance company submitted that their liability is limited to Rs. 15,000 and submitted that insurance company is liable to indemnify only to the extent of Rs. 15,000. We do not agree with this contention. Their witness dw 1 D. R. Tantwa has deposed in para 4 of his deposition that insured has paid extra premium of Rs. 50 and the liability of insurance company for all the passengers is unlimited. He admitted in para 4 of his deposition that the insured has paid extra premium of Rs. 50 as mentioned in 'c' to 'c' portion. In the said facts of case, we hold that insurance company is liable to pay compensation and we direct that the amount of compensation with interest shall be paid jointly and severally by the respondents. ( 7 ) AS regards quantum of compensation is concerned, AW 1 Lalloo Ram has categorically deposed in para 5 of his deposition that he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month and he could not work for a period of six months. In the absence of any cross-examination on the income of the injured, we hold that the income of injured at the time of accident was Rs. 2,000 per month. 2,000 per month and he could not work for a period of six months. In the absence of any cross-examination on the income of the injured, we hold that the income of injured at the time of accident was Rs. 2,000 per month. The appellant was admitted in the hospital and he was unable to work for a period of six months. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs. 12,000 towards loss of earnings for a period of six months. So far as the injuries are concerned, it is true that the appellant has filed some cash memos of medicine bills but they are photocopies and they are not proved. Therefore, appellant is entitled for actual expense incurred in the treatment which should be supported by bills. On perusal of original records, we find that some bills have been filed, but considering the condition of the appellant, we hold that it was not possible for him to maintain the medical bills. But the fact remains that he was treated for a period of about six months for fracture in ribs. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the fact that the appellant had suffered pain and agony on account of fracture, rs. 10,000 is paid towards pain and agony and Rs. 3,000 towards medical expenses. Appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date of application. ( 8 ) APPEAL succeeds and is allowed with costs throughout. Counsel's fee as per schedule. Appeal allowed. .