U. C. MAHESHWARI, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 13/3/1996, passed by the third Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Satna in Claim Case No. 38 of 1994 whereby application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25. 1. 1992 Yashwant Singh, appellant No. 1, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. MK A 35 from babupur to Satna and such bus had huge passenger rush and was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner consequently met an accident near badkhal Nala and due to opening of the gate of it appellant No. 1 fell down outside resultantly got injured. He was shifted to district Hospital, Satna where Dr. S. K. Jain, AW 4, treated him and subsequently referred to Bombay for further surgical treatment. According to the pleadings of the appellants, he got fractures of tibia and fibula on the left leg thereby permanent disability has been caused. It is further said that due to this injury, he is not able to discharge his duties as earlier and lot of amount has also been spent over the treatment. ( 3 ) IT was further pleaded that the incident was reported to the police as per Exh. P1 and the respondent No. 2 was registered owner of the bus and insured with respondent No. 3. Initially this claim was preferred claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and interest. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS filed their written statements and denied the allegations pleaded by the appellant and it was pleaded that the appellant No. 1 was not travelling in the bus. If any incident, as alleged, by the appellant, was happened then certainly, the offence would have been registered with the police. But in the absence of it the contentions of the appellants are not reliable. In view of aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and proceeded with the trial and on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that no offence regarding such accident was registered at any police station either on report by the complainant or any other passenger or on information by District Hospital, Satna. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that no offence regarding such accident was registered at any police station either on report by the complainant or any other passenger or on information by District Hospital, Satna. ( 6 ) THE counsel for appellants submitted that the registration of the criminal case is not the condition precedent to claim the compensation under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When appellant no. 1 got injured due to alleged accident met by rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1, he was shifted to the District Hospital, Satna and remained under treatment so it was not possible for him to go and lodge the report but at subsequent stage a report in writing was sent which was not challenged by any of the respondents during cross-examination of the appellant. Therefore even on this report if offence was not registered then merely on this ground the claim of appellant could not be dismissed. His further submission was that the incident was proved by other evidence laid on record so the Tribunal is bound to consider and allow the claim application for reasonable compensation. ( 7 ) HE also submitted that it has been proved that appellant No. 1 was travelling in bus and due to negligence of respondent no. 1 got injured for which he remained under treatment for a long time not only at Satna but Bombay also in which huge amount has been spent and the same is proved by the appellant as AW 2 which is further supported by witness Shyamji Malviya, AW 1, a passenger of bus. Appellant no. 1 boarded the said bus from Babupur, it was proved by Kamlesh, AW 3, who also deposed regarding injury and treatment of the appellant No. 1. It was also said that dr. S. K. Jain, AW 4, who treated and prepared the initial injury report and referred the appellant No. 1 to Bombay Hospital, bombay for further treatment has proved the date and injury in his deposition which is evident by Exh. P3 discharge card of district Hospital, Satna. As per Exh. P3 the appellant No. 1 was admitted on 25. 1. 1992 (the date of incident) and on diagnosis, the fracture of upper 3rd tibia and fibula gross comminution depress tibial plate in the left leg was found and treated by Dr. P3 discharge card of district Hospital, Satna. As per Exh. P3 the appellant No. 1 was admitted on 25. 1. 1992 (the date of incident) and on diagnosis, the fracture of upper 3rd tibia and fibula gross comminution depress tibial plate in the left leg was found and treated by Dr. S. K. Jain. Subsequently who also referred the case for further treatment to Bombay Hospital, bombay on 30. 1. 1992. Regarding treatment in Bombay Hospital a discharge card exh. P6 was also referred which shows that on 31. 1. 1992, appellant No. 1 was admitted in the hospital and treated under the observation and unit of Dr. H. R. Jhunjhunwala and on 26. 2. 1992 he was discharged and in support of this treatment Exh. P4, Exh. P5 and Exh. P7 papers regarding prescription and investigation are referred and submits that due to the fracture of tibia and fibula appellant No. 1 was subjected to surgery at satna and Bombay and subsequent to it he visited Bombay twice or thrice by spending huge sum for post-operative consultation. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to his submission, Dr. Jain, AW 4, was an independent witness who deposed that the appellant No. 1 was assured about sending the report to police by the duty doctor but he was unable to say whether any such report was given to the police or not. Although the concerning record of the hospital or any bed head ticket or the medico-legal register of the hospital neither called nor proved but such statement of the doctor is unrebutted and not challenged in cross-examination thus could not be disbelieved. Therefore, the accident and injuries to the appellant are proved even in the absence of registration of offence. ( 9 ) HE further submitted that as per certificate Exh. P2 given by Dr. Jain appellant no. 1 got 30 per cent permanent/partial disablement in left leg due to said fracture and submits that all these circumstances were not considered by the Tribunal and his application was dismissed. ( 10 ) WHILE, on the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 3 justified the dismissal of the claim application and submitted that such injuries to the appellant No. 1 were not caused due to alleged accident of bus. He supported his submission on the strength of absence of registration of criminal case. ( 10 ) WHILE, on the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 3 justified the dismissal of the claim application and submitted that such injuries to the appellant No. 1 were not caused due to alleged accident of bus. He supported his submission on the strength of absence of registration of criminal case. As per his submission if the incident was happened then certainly an offence could have been registered by the police. Therefore no prima facie proof regarding accident has been put forth by the appellants. He also submitted that the report Exh. PI is not having any endorsement of the police regarding receipt and also submitted that registration of criminal case is the condition precedent for consideration of claim case. He further submitted that merely on the basis of some medical papers either of the District Hospital, Satna or of Bombay Hospital or on the basis of certificates issued by Dr. Jain, AW 4, the appellant No. 1 is not entitled for any compensation. His submission was also that as alleged the accident took place on saturday and the appellant No. 1 was in service of Telephone Department where saturday is the non-working day. Therefore no question to travel from his village to Satna had arisen on Saturday and also said that the permanent partial disablement of the appellant No. 1 has not been proved and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 11 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusing the record of the Tribunal, I am of the considered view, that this appeal deserves to be allowed because of the following reasons:the provisions regarding claim under the Motor Vehicles Act are enacted by keeping in view the social welfare or the justice to the community and whenever the incident of vehicular accident takes place and in pursuance of it any person like appellant No. 1 got injured and circumstances are proved then claimant is always entitled for compensation irrespective whether the police has registered the offence regarding the incident or not. Because no claim case can be left over on the mercy of the police. Because no claim case can be left over on the mercy of the police. ( 12 ) IT is also a settled principle that every case is decided on appreciation of its own pleadings, circumstances and the evidence recorded in it, if such accident and injuries are proved then the compensation should be awarded such claim cannot be left over on the mercy of the criminal case or its papers. The party has right to prove his case by leading evidence before the tribunal and Tribunal may consider even in the absence of the criminal case. My aforesaid view is based on a decided case in the matter of Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram, 1990 ACJ 333 (HP), in which it was held as under:" (17) I am not impressed by the assertion of the respondents that no report to the police was made as to this accident. Circumstances have been explained by Sukh Dev, PW 2, as to why the same was not lodged. In case the same was not done by the claimant or sukh Dev, PW 2 and Sant Ram, PW 3, it is not understood as to why the same was not made by the doctor as it was a medico-legal case. In case it was not done by the doctor, who was legally bound to do so, could it be expected that an injured person and Sukh Dev, PW 2 and Sant Ram, PW 3, who were looking after him, would do so after leaving the claimant in such a stage of tragedy. Therefore, even if no report to the police was made, no adverse inference can be drawn out of this failure. The Tribunal has drawn certain inferences as if it was trying a criminal case. Such a course is not available to the Tribunal. "the aforesaid principle was also laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ranchi Bench) in the matter of Mohd. Moinuddin v. Haliman Nisha, 2000 ACJ 532 (Patna ). ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid premises, when the case athand in examined then it is apparent that Exh. P1 although no date of presentation and endorsement of police are mentioned in it but such report was exhibited in the deposition of the appellant no. Moinuddin v. Haliman Nisha, 2000 ACJ 532 (Patna ). ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid premises, when the case athand in examined then it is apparent that Exh. P1 although no date of presentation and endorsement of police are mentioned in it but such report was exhibited in the deposition of the appellant no. 1 who was examined as AW 2 and his testimony regarding this was not challenged in cross-examination and incident was proved not by appellant No. 1 only but kamlesh, AW 3 and by Shyam Malviya, aw 1, a co-passenger of the same bus. Other circumstances have also been proved by medical papers as exhibited on record. One more material circumstance is also available in favour of the appellant on record that no evidence was put forth by insurance company, respondent No. 3, in rebuttal to dislodge the case of appellant by examining of the driver and the registered owner of the bus. Therefore there was sufficient circumstance to award the claim against respondents and this aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given finding merely on the ground of absence of criminal case and some minor contradictions in between the statements of appellant's witnesses. Thus the appreciation of the evidence was not carried out by keeping in view the aforesaid principles. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, on re-appreciation of the evidence, I am of the considered view, that on the date of the incident the appellant no. 1 was travelling in the bus driven by the respondent No. 1 and on meeting the accident the gate of the bus opened and the appellant fell down outside the bus resul-tantly got aforesaid alleged injuries and in such circumstance all the respondents are responsible jointly and severally to pay compensation to appellant No. 1. ( 15 ) THE Tribunal has not considered the issue regarding quantum of compensation because the claim petition was dismissed only on aforesaid grounds. Therefore, two options are open before this court, one is to remit back the matter to the Tribunal for assessing the compensation and another to assess the compensation here only. ( 16 ) THE incident took place on 25. 1. Therefore, two options are open before this court, one is to remit back the matter to the Tribunal for assessing the compensation and another to assess the compensation here only. ( 16 ) THE incident took place on 25. 1. 92, thereafter more than 13 years have been passed and the appellants are still waiting for adjudication of this matter and, therefore, I deem it fit to assess and decide the amount of compensation on the basis of available record. ( 17 ) YASHWANT Singh, complainant, AW 2, has deposed in his deposition that he is in service of the Telecommunication department, Satna but regarding salary and expenses on treatment and also about damages he said nothing but it was proved that he was initially treated at Satna and thereafter at Bombay and on discharging from Bombay Hospital subsequently he went to Bombay regarding consultation for twice or thrice. So, it is apparent that a huge amount was spent by him but due to lack of bills or papers the prayed amount in the claim petition cannot be awarded but due to the facts and circumstances the surgical treatment of tibia and fibula bone at Satna and Bombay, I deem fit to award rs. 30,000 for treatment by keeping in view that treatment in Bombay Hospital being a private hospital was very costly and during period of treatment someone (attendant) would have been remained with him at Bombay on whom he spent some money. Therefore, Rs. 10,000 in the head of attendant and so far permanent disability is concerned he is entitled for Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) in view of 30 per cent permanent disability as discussed above. ( 18 ) THE aforesaid amount of compensation is awarded by keeping in view the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Prem Narayan sharma v. Sunil Gupta, 2003 ACJ 1584 (MP), in which it was held as under:"it is well settled that award of compensation in such cases has to be more as compared to fatal cases, since in the former case, the amount of compensation is for suffering of the injuries and the injured has to bear the pain throughout the remaining period of his life and has to utilise the compensation for himself. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that compensation for personal injuries in this case deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000. " ( 19 ) IN aforesaid case regarding fracture of tibia and fibula bone with 26 per cent permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded for injury and some other amount in other heads was also awarded but in the reported case regarding expenses of treatment some papers had been submitted and accordingly expenses of treatment amount was awarded. Therefore, by considering this principle the compensation for injury has been assessed by distinguishing the head of treatment in the lack of bills and papers. ( 20 ) THEREFORE by setting aside the impugned award and by allowing the claim petition an award of Rs. 1,40,000 is passed against respondents and in favour of appellant No. 1. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim application and respondent would be liable to pay this amount jointly and severally with costs throughout and counsel fees would be Rs. 2,000. The appeal stands allowed. Appeal allowed. .