JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Matter is taken in revised cause list. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard Sri Akhter Abbas, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. Facts in brief, of the present case are that Sri Masoom Ali Khan claimant/respondent has filed a claim petition under section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1968 to get compensation for injury which he has suffered in an accident which took place on 25.4.2000. The said case has been registered as Masoom Ali Khan v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and another, Claim Petition No. 24 of 2001. 4. Facts as pleaded in the claim petition are to the effect that on 25.4.2000 claimant was travelling by Bus No. U.P. 50B/9288 from Kadipur to Lucknow, which belongs to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh Depot At about 4.30 p.m. near Pancho Peeran Sadar Kotwah due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the said bus fell down in a 'Gaddha' as a result of which claimant has suffered injury and his right arm was broken for which he has got treatment in Balrampur Hospital as well as Bombay Hospital, Bombay. In this regard necessary information has also been given by the concerned police authorities. 5. Said claim petition has been contested by respondent/appellant on the ground that it is totally incorrect on the part of the claimant to state that due to accident which took place on 25.4.2000 he suffered injuries rather no accident has taken place, so the claim petition filed by the claimant liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of evidence and other material on record the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Lucknow allowed the claim petition by means of judgment and award dated 22.12.2007 thereby awarding  Rs. 86000/- as compensation as well as 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. The Judgment and award dated 22.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Lucknow in Masoom Ali Khan v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, Claim Petition No. 24 of 2001, has been challenged by the appellant/U.P. State Road Transport Corporation by filing present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 7. The Judgment and award dated 22.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Lucknow in Masoom Ali Khan v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, Claim Petition No. 24 of 2001, has been challenged by the appellant/U.P. State Road Transport Corporation by filing present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 7. Sri Akhter Abbas, learned Counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and award submits that claimant/respondent has not suffered any injury in the matter in question and there is no evidence to the effect that accident in question has taken place in which his right hand was broken, so the award given by the Tribunal is contrary to facts of the case. He also submits on behalf of the appellant that claimant has not proved by way of any cogent evidence in respect to sum which has been spent by him in his treatment, so there is no justification or reason whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to allow the claim petition of the claimant by means of judgment and award dated 22.12.2007. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G. Dhanasekar v. M.D. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited 2014 (104) ALR 94 (SC). 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. 9. Before adjudicating and deciding the controversy involved in the present appeal, it will be appropriate to go through the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Dutta and others 2011 (89) ALR 709 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out certain underlying principles and propositions for deciding claim petitions under the Act: 1. The rules of the pleadings in principle do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. 2. That, though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in adversarial litigation. 3. The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of the matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry. 4. 2. That, though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in adversarial litigation. 3. The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of the matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry. 4. The Tribunal while passing the award makes a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident after due enquiry in accordance to the statute. 10. In Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 2009 (75) ALR 625 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a motor accident claim petition is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaguim Xavier Cruz and another (2013) 31 LCD 2432 , Hon'ble Supreme Court following the dictum laid down by it in Shila Dutta and Bimla Devi's cases (supra) held that the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to motor accident claim cases and that the plea of negligence is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In the instant case, Tribunal on the basis of material evidence on record came to the conclusion that accident/incident took place on 25.4.2000 in which claimant/respondent suffered injury as a result of which his right hand was broken. While coming to the said conclusion, Tribunal has taken into account the statement of the witnesses which has been produced by appellant, namely, D.W. 1 Sriram Yadav Driver and D.W. 2 Jayant Kumar Conductor of the bus as well as taken into consideration the claimant has got valid ticket and also came to the conclusion that in respect to incident/accident in question which has taken place on 25.4.2000 a letter has been written by the claimant to Senior Superintendent of Police which is on record as document No. C-62 so on the basis of which it is clearly established that incident took place on 25.4.2000. 13. 13. Further while allowing the compensation to the claimant, the Tribunal has given categorical finding of fact that for treatment of his right arm which was broken due to accident which took place on 25.4.2000, appellant has got treatment at Balrampur Hospital as well as Bombay Hospital, Bombay and a steel rod has been put in his right hand. In this regard, the claimant/respondent has filed medical prescriptions/documents which are on record as Soochi No. 22 and Kagaj No. C-II on the basis of which Tribunal came to the conclusion that he has got medical treatment and awarded a sum of  Rs. 36,943/- toward medical treatment. In additional to above  Rs. 8,800/- has been awarded on the ground that the claimant is getting  Rs. 4,400/- per month as monthly salary while working at Jan Sansthan and he was hospitalized for two months. Further, a sum of  Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for traveling expenses and  Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded for physical and mental agony. Thus, a total sum of  Rs. 85,743/- i.e.,  Rs. 86,000/- has been awarded to the claimant as compensation. 14. After taking into the material evidence on record as well as the law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Bimla Devi and others (supra) and Dulcina Fernandes and others (supra), I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and award dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Lucknow in Masoom Ali Khan v. U.P. S.R.T.C. and another, Claim Petition No. 24 of 2001. 15. Further, learned Counsel for the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the judgment cited by him in support of his argument. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to cost.