Judgment ( 1. ) THE instant appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the sum, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 58/07 vide order dated 22-12-2007, whereby the claim of the appellant regarding the injuries sustained by him in the alleged motor accident has been awarded for the sum of only Rs.5000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 18-10-2006. ( 2. ) THE material facts which are necessary to adjudicate this appeal in short are, that the appellant/claimant herein filed a claim petition in the Tribunal contending that on 24-8-1999 at about 11.30 by driving his scooter the appellant was passing in front of the Collector Bungalow at Morena, at the same time a Tractor bearing registration No. MP06-J/3477, driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came there and dashed the scooter, due to which the appellant fell down and sustained the injuries on his mandible, right leg and also on other parts of his person. After lodging the report of the accident to the police station Kotwali, Morena and registration of crime against respondent No. 2 for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, he was sent to hospital where on medical examination his M.L.C, Report was prepared and he was further advised to carry out the x-ray of the leg. On carrying out the same, fracture of tibia fibula in upper l/3rd of the right leg was revealed. After holding the investigation, the respondent No. 2 was charge-sheeted. Thereafter, after obtaining certified copy of the requisite papers, the appellant has filed this claim petition. As per further averments of the claim petition, due to the aforesaid fracture and other injuries the appellant sustained permanent disability in his right leg. He has also suffered huge amount of expenses on the treatment of such injuries. The aforesaid offending tractor was registered in the name of respondent No. 1, while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. With these averments, the claim was filed for the sum of Rs.33,25,000/-. ( 3. He has also suffered huge amount of expenses on the treatment of such injuries. The aforesaid offending tractor was registered in the name of respondent No. 1, while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. With these averments, the claim was filed for the sum of Rs.33,25,000/-. ( 3. ) IN reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 by denying the averments in the claim petition along with factum of alleged accident, it is stated that the appellant has not sustained any alleged injury. However, respondent No. 1 admits that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, and such vehicle was driven by respondent No. 2 against whom the aforesaid criminal case has been registered and initiated. IN the alternative, it is stated that on holding any liability of the impugned claim against them then same be saddled against respondent No. 3-INsurer, as the offending vehicle was insured with it. ( 4. ) IN reply of respondent No. 3 by denying the averments of the alleged accident it is stated that for want of information from respondent No. 1 and 2 regarding the accident as per terms of the policy, the liability to indemnify the sum of the impugned claim could not be saddled against it. Sustaining any permanent disability due to the injuries of the alleged accident by the appellant is also denied. The alleged income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month is denied. IN the special pleadings it is stated that the impugned claim is filed under the collusion with respondent No. 1, the registered owner of the tractor. It is also stated that on the date of incident the tractor was being driven by respondent No. 2 contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy without having the duly and effective driving licence, hence no liability of this claim can be saddled with it. The objection of non-impleading the necessary parties in the matter is also taken. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made. The objection of non-impleading the necessary parties in the matter is also taken. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the same by holding that alleged injuries including fracture of tibia fibula bones in the right leg were sustained by the appellant in the alleged accident which was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending tractor by respondent No. 2, awarded the claim of the appellant for the abovementioned sum by saddling the joint and several liability to indemnify the same against the respondents. Being dissatisfied with such awarded quantum of the sum, the appellant has come forward with this appeal for further enhancement of the same. ( 5. ) THE appellant's counsel after taking me through the pleadings and the documents available on record, said that on proper appreciation of the same, by holding that the appellant has sustained the permanent disability in his right leg, the Tribunal ought to have awarded his claim keeping in view the available evidence and the provision of section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the sum at higher side in comparison to Rs.5000/-. In continuation he said that although in support of the claim to prove the nature of injuries and such fracture and its effect on the physical body of the appellant or to prove any permanent disablement he has not examined any doctor but in spite of that, the Tribunal was bound to consider the un-rebutted evidence of the appellant in this regard. He also said that in spite of his long treatment, in the head of medicines, special diet, travelling and attendant expenses, nothing has been awarded to the appellant. According to him, the alleged fracture in normal course takes near about 4 to 6 months in its curement till some extent. In such premises, the appellant was also entitled for the sum under the head of loss of income for the period of treatment but the same was not awarded by the Tribunal. With these arguments, he prayed for further enhancement of the sum by allowing this appeal. ( 6. In such premises, the appellant was also entitled for the sum under the head of loss of income for the period of treatment but the same was not awarded by the Tribunal. With these arguments, he prayed for further enhancement of the sum by allowing this appeal. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurer, justifying the award and the approach of the Tribunal said that the sum awarded by the Tribunal in the available circumstances being based on proper appreciation of the evidence is just and proper, the same does not require any interference for further enhancement at this stage. In continuation he said that in the lack of any deposition of the treating doctor or other expert, who examined the appellant and gave the report in that regard, there is no scope in the present appeal for further enhancement of the sum and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and also perused the impugned award. ( 7. ) TRUE it is that in order to prove the aforesaid fracture of tibia fibula bone, by which the appellant has sustained permanent disability in his leg, neither the treating Doctor nor other from whom he had got the certificate in this regard has been examined. But, only on account of non-examination of such doctors the other available evidence and the documents available on record could not be ignored. It is needless to state here that/the provisions of compensation under the Act are enacted for the welfare of the victim of the vehicular accident who sustained the injuries or lost the person upon whom they were dependent. So, in such premises, by adopting the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure strictly the doors of the Court or the Tribunal could not be closed for those victims. In such premises, the argument advanced by the Insurer's counsel that in the lack of deposition of the doctor no inference can be drawn that the appellant sustained any permanent disability in his leg has not appealed me, hence such argument is hereby failed. ( 8. In such premises, the argument advanced by the Insurer's counsel that in the lack of deposition of the doctor no inference can be drawn that the appellant sustained any permanent disability in his leg has not appealed me, hence such argument is hereby failed. ( 8. ) I am of the considered view that if un-rebutted, convincing and admissible evidence showing that the appellant has sustained any such injury in the road accident created some permanent disability in his person for ever, then in support of such evidence taking into consideration the certified copy of the relevant papers of the criminal case marked on the record the claim could be awarded by holding that the appellant had sustained permanent disability. It is apparent fact on record that while recording the deposition of appellant Mahendra Kumar, he categorically stated that he sustained alleged injuries in the aforesaid vehicular accident for which he had undergone for surgery in some hospital in which some plates are inserted in his leg. He spent near about Rs. 35,000/- in the treatment of such said injury. In spite of taking such treatment he has not cured and still he is not in a position to walk and carry out his business activities properly. According to him, he is running a shop of electric cooler and fan. He also proved the initial M.L.C. report of his injuries, ExP-4, according to which, one lacerated wound and one contusion were found on his person and so far as such contusion is concerned, he was advised for x-ray. On carrying out the same on very next day of the incident, i.e. 25-8-1999 in district Hospital Morena, as per report ExP-5, the aforesaid fracture of tibia fibula in upper l/3rd of the leg was revealed. Along with the aforesaid un-rebutted evidence of the appellant on taking into consideration his M.L.C. report and x-ray report then even in the absence of the deposition of Doctor, it is apparent that the appellant sustained grievous injuries with fracture of tibia fibula bone in his right leg. The M.L.C. report and the x-ray report being prepared by the doctors of Government hospital, could not be disbelieved. Keeping in view the nature of such injury and its complication, it can be inferred that the appellant would not have cured 100% even after taking the long and expensive treatment. The M.L.C. report and the x-ray report being prepared by the doctors of Government hospital, could not be disbelieved. Keeping in view the nature of such injury and its complication, it can be inferred that the appellant would not have cured 100% even after taking the long and expensive treatment. Probably he had taken the treatment for near about 4 to 6 months. So, in such premises it is held that the aforesaid injury, the fracture of tibia fibula bone, created permanent disability till some extent in the right leg of the appellant. In such premises, keeping in view the provisions of section 140 of the Act, it is held that the appellant was entitled for awarding the claim of the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid, taking into consideration the over all facts of the case including the aforesaid fracture of tibia fibula bone, on account of which appellant sustained the permanent disability, his claim is awarded for Rs.25,000/- as compensation of his aforesaid permanent disability, besides this, he is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on the head of the treatment and Rs. 10,000/- on the different heads like special diet, attendant expenses, travelling charges and other incidental expenses. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant is awarded for the total sum of Rs. 45,000/- ( 10. ) IN the aforesaid premises, by allowing this appeal in part, the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant is enhanced from such sum up to Rs.45,000/- as discussed above. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The liability to indemnify such sum is saddled jointly and severally against the respondents as held by the Tribunal. To this extent the impugned award is modified, while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 11. ) THE appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.