Judgment 1. By this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and Award delivered by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.691 of 1997 decided on 8.3.2002. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellants that the motor vehicle accident in question had occurred on 9.3.1995 when the claimant was traveling by Luxury Bus No.MH-27/A-9084 from Nagpur to Amravati. According to the claimant, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the goods Truck No.CJ-3/@-221. The accident occurred near village Sarwadi, Tq.Karanja, District Wardha. In the result, left limb of the claimant sustained compound fracture resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 45 % affecting his efficiency to perform routine work. Compensation was claimed to the extent of Rs.93,137/-. The learned Member of the Tribunal held in the affirmative that, in fact, the claimant suffered injury affecting his permanent disability in an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicles. The claimant in support of the claim had entered in the witness box and had narrated that, while he was traveling towards Amravati from Nagpur by bus of Akshay Travels and when the bus was between Kondhali to Karanja near village Sarwadi, the driver of the bus could not control the bus. In the meantime, one goods truck coming from the opposite side dashed on the rear side of the bus. In the result, the seat on which the claimant was sitting was detached and turned around. The claimant suffered fracture to his thigh bone and knee bone of left leg. The claimant was taken to hospital in Karanja and then was shifted to Nagpur and he received medical treatment at Medical College, Nagpur. A plate had to be inserted into limb. Thus, for about 1½ month, the claimant was receiving medical treatment as well as physiotherapy treatment. Thus, according to the claimant, he was unable to follow his daily pursuits and was also unable to work properly due to severe pains. The shop of the claimant was closed for eight months. A plate had to be inserted into limb. Thus, for about 1½ month, the claimant was receiving medical treatment as well as physiotherapy treatment. Thus, according to the claimant, he was unable to follow his daily pursuits and was also unable to work properly due to severe pains. The shop of the claimant was closed for eight months. The claimant had engaged a domestic servant who used to take him to the hospital and had spent a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards his services and the claimant was also required to engage an autorickshaw for attending hospital. Thus, he had to spent for conveyance as well. 3. In support of the claim, the claimant had tendered documentary evidence in the form of his travel from Nagpur to Amravati and Medical evidence such as discharge card dt.3.4.1995 indicating that the claimant was admitted in the Medical College, Nagpur on 10.3.1995 and later, he was taking treatment as an outdoor patient. The claimant also examined domestic Assistant Mr. Syed Jamil Anwarul Hasan and Abdul Gaffar Sk. Suleman who used to take the claimant for medical treatment daily. Considering the undisputed evidence that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. by serving in the Stationery shop, Nagpur under the name and style “Superior Shop”, Chitra Talkies, Nagpur and rest of the evidence led by the claimant, which remained uncontroverted, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur proceeded to allow the Claim Petition directing the Insurers and owner, driver etc./respondents in the Claim Petition to jointly and severally pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- in equal proportion with 9 % interest from the date of petition till realisation. The learned Member also directed 50% of the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit for two years. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to hold the appellant and other respondents in the Claim Petition as liable for compensation. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, medical Certificate which is referred to by the claimant in his evidence and produced on record was not duly proved. It is further submitted that there was no application of mind by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. to award compensation without legal proof as to permanent disability to the extent of 45 % as claimed by the claimant. It is further submitted that there was no application of mind by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. to award compensation without legal proof as to permanent disability to the extent of 45 % as claimed by the claimant. It is, therefore, submitted that the Award ought to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant submitted that no strict rules of law of evidence are applicable as contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act as in such cases, considering the position of the claimant, who was injured in the motor vehicle accident with fractures, it is not always proper to insist upon strict proof in cases under social legislation for welfare and compensating victims of motor vehicle accidents. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, learned Member relied upon evidence on record of the claimant and his two witnesses namely domestic assistant and autorickshaw driver, who used to assist the claimant and the domestic assistant for going to the hospital to and fro. The depositions as well as the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimant and his witnesses could not have been disbelieved in the absence of any contradictory evidence on behalf of the respondents. None of the respondents bothered to lead evidence from the witness box. That being so, it cannot be said that unopposed evidence of the claimant and his witnesses could not have been acted upon by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. Considering the nature of claim as well as the continuous hardships and inconvenience which the injured claimant has to suffer as a result of grievous injuries to him arising out of the motor vehicle accident, the strict rules of evidence and harsh waterproof compliance of technicalities as to proof of the claim need not be insisted upon in the matters of social welfare legislation. What is relevant is to see whether the claim is prima facie true and genuine and whether adequate evidence is forthcoming in order to believe that the claimant met with motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to him which required him to undergo medical treatment in the hospital for a considerable length of time. What is relevant is to see whether the claim is prima facie true and genuine and whether adequate evidence is forthcoming in order to believe that the claimant met with motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to him which required him to undergo medical treatment in the hospital for a considerable length of time. Although by leading more evidence of doctor attending the claimant, the claimant could have been able to throw light upon the extent of physical incapacity and permanent disability and fairness thereof from the view point of medical experts and the learned Member could have been better assisted better to award higher compensation than awarded in this case. But, on the basis of whatever evidence is produced and led by the claimant and his two witnesses and the documents produced on behalf of the claimant and bearing in mind the fact that the evidence on the side of the claimant remained unchallenged, the conclusion of the impugned Judgment and Award granting compensation in the sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation of the amount is neither improbable nor unreasonable considering the case of the claimant as made out before the Tribunal in this case. There is no cross appeal in respect of quantum of compensation awarded. Looking into the entire evidence produced on record and the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal which appears reasonable including the rate of interest awarded, I do not find any compelling ground in this appeal to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in exercise of appellate power. That being so, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.