Judgment : The appeal is preferred by the injured claimant against dismissal of the claim, by order dated 12th of April, 2005, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Amravati in M.A.C.P.No.86 of 1998. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, the appellant (injured - claimant) was working with Land Records Department at Tiwsa as Superintendent of Land Record, in August, 1997. Unfortunately, he suffered injury over his left eye in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15th of August, 1997 while he was travelling to Tiwsa in a Jeep along with one Haribhau Gogate and Chandrashekhar Nistane. It is the contention of the appellant that in the accident, Jeep driver as well as two more persons had died on the spot itself while the appellant suffered injuries and was shifted to Irvin Hospital, Amravati immediately after the accident. It is the contention of the appellant that as a result of accident there was 100% loss of vision of his left eye. The appellant had relied upon medical certificate issued by Dr. Neelima Pawade who certified 100% left eye visual loss of the appellant/claimant. It is further contended that the owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck, which is dashed against Jeep, had not filed written statement on the record. Only respondent nos. 5 and 6 had contested the claim before the Tribunal. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim. Hence, this appeal is preferred. 3. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the claimmant was immediately admitted to Irvin Hospital and he was in hospital for ten days. Being a government servant, he had claimed reimbursement for medical treatment and therefore, he is not c1aiming any compenstion for medial treatment. According to the learned Advocate for the claimant, due to the motor vehic1e accident, operation of left eye was advised by an eye specialist. Claimant had also suffered head injury which required 65 stitches and he was in the hospital of Dr. Neelima Pawade for three days. He had also received medical treatment from Dr. Satish Deshmukh - an eye specialist. 4. Learned Member of the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the motor vehicle accident is occurred on 15/8/1997 because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.MXL 6826 owned by respondent no.2 - Mohd. Rafique. Neelima Pawade for three days. He had also received medical treatment from Dr. Satish Deshmukh - an eye specialist. 4. Learned Member of the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the motor vehicle accident is occurred on 15/8/1997 because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.MXL 6826 owned by respondent no.2 - Mohd. Rafique. The Jeep bearing registration No. MH-30/8831 was owned by Shioprasad Kachrulal Laddha, r/o Risod, Distt.Akola. Respondent no.5 - National Insurance Co.Ltd. disowned the liability to make compensation, as according to it, the claimant was not immediately hospitalized and that there was no other injury to the left eye over or around it. According to the learned Advocate for respondent no.5 there would have been serious external injuries around left eye but no such injury certificate was on record. It is also contended that there is no sufficient evidence to believe that the appellant/claimant suffered injury due to motor vehicle accident concerned. It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident the c1aimant was nearing his retirement and that he had taken voluntary retirement on the ground of his ill-health due to the accident, but this version was not accepted by the learned Member of the MACT and therefore, claim was dismissed. 5. I have considered the evidence led in the claim petition by the appellant/claimant. At Exh.74, claimant/appellant had stated that accident occurred on 15/8/1997 at about 7.30 a.m. while he was travelling by Jeep from Panchavati Amravati to Tiosa along with other persons. When the Jeep was about 3 or 4 kms. away after Nandgaon, a truck coming from opposite direction, which was loaded and driven fast, dashed the jeep and claimant was unconscious on the spot due to head injury as well as injury to left eye and ratina of left eye was damaged. After the accident, the appellant was unable to see by left eye and he was being admitted in Irvin hospital at Amravati and was remained in the hospital for 8 to 10 days before he was shifted to Nagpur in the hospital of Dr. Neelima Pawade - an eye specialist because claimant was advised left eye operation. He had 65 stitches to his head. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs. Neelima Pawade - an eye specialist because claimant was advised left eye operation. He had 65 stitches to his head. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs. 12000/- per month and had yet to serve for seven years in the Land Records Department but he had voluntarily retired due to health problem arising out of the accident. Claimant also made reference to police paper, such as FIR (Exh.75), copy of spot panchanama (Exh.76), copy of charge-sheet (Exh.77), injury report (Exh.78) and medical Certificate dated 3/2/2004. According to the claimant, he could not produce original medical bill as he had claimed reimbursement for medical treatment from the department. Claimant also deposed that accident had occurred because of negligence of truck driver which was the judicial finding in companion claim petition Nos.332 of 1998 and 97 of 1998 in which the appellant was not party. In Exh.79, in the claim petition, it is mentioned that claimant was admitted in hospital of Dr. Neelima Pawade from 12/2/1998 to 16/3/1998 and treated by her for 100% left eye vision loss. She had also observed that there was head and face injuries which claimant had suffered in the accident. 6. Learned Advocate for respondent no.5 - Insurance Company contended that there was no strict proof of medical certificate and it cannot be read in evidence. She made reference to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..vs.. Parveen and ors. reported in II(2012) ACC 319 to submit that it is basic principle of law of evidence that document ought to be proved by the best evidence of doctor, who certified the injury, except in case of public document as contemplated under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Advocate has also contended that disability certificate is not a public document and must be proved in accordance with law by doctor who issued it certifying the fact of disability suffered by the claimant. Further, according to the learned Advocate, such certificate issued by the doctor long after the occurrence of the accident cannot be believed. Reference is also made to ruling in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and ors. ..vs.. Yelamarti Satyam and ors. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 to argue that the mere marking of document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. Reference is also made to ruling in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and ors. ..vs.. Yelamarti Satyam and ors. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 to argue that the mere marking of document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. The ruling referred to in Sait Tarajee's case refers to a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage bond allegedly executed by the first defendant and his sons in favour of the plaintiff-Firm. It was not the case relating to compensation claim for motor vehicle accident. According to the learned counsel for respondent no.5 - Insurance Company, owner was necessary party to the proceeding and he was not made party in this appeal. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, in spite of so many attempts, owner could not be served while appeal remained pending and therefore, the owner is answerable to claim though he remained absent in the appeal proceeding. 7. The motor vehicle Act 1988 is a social welfare legislation and strict rules of evidence as contemplated under the Evidence Act 1872 need not apply, as evidence available in a claim petition is to be considered upon preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of strict rules of evidence which is required in case of prosecution in a criminal case to prove offences beyond all reasonable doubt. The distinction, therefore, has to be borne in mind while considering the evidence in the claim proceedings in the motor vehicle accident case. 8. In the present claim petition, record would indicate that evidence of the injured claimant was recorded by the Tribunal and claimant had described the accident occurred on 15/8/1998 while he was travelling by Jeep, which met with unfortunate motor vehicle accident in which three persons had died on the spot, after the jeep was dashed by the truck coming from opposite direction. Claimant also deposed about the head injury which he suffered as a result of the accident and also injury to his left eye because of which he was unable to see by his left eye. Claimant also made it clear that he was admitted in Irvin hosital and remained there for 8 to 10 days before he was shifted to Nagpur and was under treatment of Dr. Neelima Pawade - an eye specialist. Claimant also made it clear that he was admitted in Irvin hosital and remained there for 8 to 10 days before he was shifted to Nagpur and was under treatment of Dr. Neelima Pawade - an eye specialist. He had sustained head injury which according to him required 65 stitches to his head. In the course of deposition, the claimant was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company (respondent No.5). He admitted, as a fact, that after recovery he was allowed to join duty. He fairly admitted that he got reimbursement for medical treatment from the department and therefore, he has not produced original medical bills to show his medical expenses which government reimbursed him. He relied upon certificate issued by Dr.Neelima Pawade. He identified her signature on the certificate marked as Exh.79. Thus, injured claimant himself had referred to medical certificate issued in his favour by Dr. Neelima Pawade and denied that he lodged exorbitant claim of Rs.2,00,000/- in the claim petition. His evidence would indicate that the accident had occurred because of negligence of truck driver and the truck was covered by insurance policy operating on the date of accident which was insured by respondent no.5. Under these circumstances, claimant was required to take voluntary retirement on 2/10/2000 due to the ill health on account of accident when, in fact, he would have retired in 2004. The appellant/claimant was in government service working as Superintendent of the Land Record and earning a sum of Rs.13000 to 14000/- per month at the time of his retirement. Exh.88 would indicate the approval for his retirement issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records Amravati Division, Amravati. The medical papers of General Hospital, Amravati at Exh.78 indicating the nature of injuries received by the claimant would corroborate the certificate issued by Dr.Neelima Pawade. Resident Medical Officer, General Hospital, Amravati also certified that claimant - injured Prakash Mahadeorao Nirmal was admitted on 15/8/1997 and was treated till his discharge on 28/8/1997 and had suffered head injury as well as eye injury. Under these circumstances, there was error on the part of the learned Member of the MACT to ignore the medical papers on the record when certificates are issued by Resident Medical Officer, General Hospital Amravati from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Amravati. Under these circumstances, there was error on the part of the learned Member of the MACT to ignore the medical papers on the record when certificates are issued by Resident Medical Officer, General Hospital Amravati from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Amravati. In my opinion, such certificate in the nature of official document can be read in evidence by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in such case. Because evidence is required to be judged upon preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 -Insurance Company, at this stage submitted that proceedings may be remanded to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Considering that the proceeding is pending since 1998, as also the nature of evidence on the basis of which the claim was sought to be proved, submission on behalf of the Insurance Company is unacceptable. It would not help insurance Company to further cause delay in the proceedings by avoiding its liability to pay compensation. The compensation claim was in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only by the claimant, as according to him, medical bills were submitted to government for reimbursement and therefore no original medical bills could be produced on record and compensation for medical treatment was not claimed. Such explanation ought to have been accepted by the learned Member of the Tribunal unfortunately it was not accepted while rejecting the claim. For all these reasons, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and it is required to be set aside. 10. The appeal is allowed. The claim as against respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 is allowed. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimant-appellant with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Appeal allowed.