JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant claimant-injured has questioned award dated 12th June, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 18 of 2009, titled as Manoj Kumar versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant-injured, being victim of the motor vehicular accident, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of 10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Precisely, the case of the claimant-injured was that on 11.10.2006, at about 10.00 a.m., he boarded Bus No. HP-22-0379, which was being driven by its driver-respondent No. 3, rashly and negligently. When the said bus reached near Shivpuri Chowk, Ludhiana, at about 3.45 p.m., the claimant-injured fell down from the bus while alighting, due to the rashness and negligence of driver-respondent No. 3 and conductor-respondent No. 4. He sustained injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55%. He was taken to S. Nihal Singh, Pawha Charitable Hospital, Ludhiana (Punjab) and thereafter, he was treated at various hospitals at Hamirpur (HP). 4. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether on 11-10-2006 the petitioner was travelling in Bus No. HP-22-0379 being driven by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 was conductor in the said bus, as alleged? …..OPP 2. Whether with the rash and negligent driving of HRTC Bus No. HP-22-0379 by respondent No. 3, the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and has become disabled as alleged? ….OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 4 conductor in HRTC Bus No. HP-22-0379 was also negligent in the performance of his duty as also responsible for the injuries on the person of the petitioner as alleged? ….OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ….OPP 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? …..OPR-1 & 2 6. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action as alleged? …..OPR-1 & 2 7. Whether no such accident had taken place with Bus No. HP-22-0379? …OPRs 8. Relief.” 6. The claimant examined seven witnesses including himself. ….OPP 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? …..OPR-1 & 2 6. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action as alleged? …..OPR-1 & 2 7. Whether no such accident had taken place with Bus No. HP-22-0379? …OPRs 8. Relief.” 6. The claimant examined seven witnesses including himself. Respondents examined Parkash Chand, Superintendent of the Office of Himachal Road Transport Corporation as RW-1 and driver-Kehar Singh stepped into the witness box as RW-2. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that claimant has failed to prove that driver had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, as such, dismissed the claim petition. Issue No. 1. 8. I have gone through the entire record. 9. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the said accident was the outcome of the rashness and negligence of respondents No. 3 & 4, i.e. driver and conductor, respectively. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence except the statement of the driver. Copy of the daily duty register (Ext. RW-1/A), does disclose that driver-Kehar Singh was driver of the offending bus and as per copy of the accident register (Ext. RW-1/B), report of the accident was entered. All the doctors have proved that claimant-injured was victim of the motor vehicle accident. Copy of the Disability Certificate (Ext. PW-1/A) does disclose that the claimant-injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55%. The copies of the Discharge Bills of Sri Krishna Hospital, Hamirpur (Ext. PW-3/A & PW-3/B) and the other documents placed on record, do prima-facie prove that the said accident was outcome of the rashness and negligence of respondents No. 3 & 4, i.e., driver and conductor, respectively. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in deciding this issue against the claimant-injured. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are set aside and is decided in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents. Issues No. 2 & 3. 10. These issues are governed by the findings returned on Issue No. 1, supra. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 2 & 3 are set aside and the said issues are decided in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents. 11. Before I deal with Issue No. 4, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 5 to 7. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 2 & 3 are set aside and the said issues are decided in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents. 11. Before I deal with Issue No. 4, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 5 to 7. Issue Issues No. 5 & 6. 12. It was for respondents No. 1 & 2 to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and the claimant-injured had no cause of action. 13. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 166 and sub section (6) of Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the MV Act’, Claims Tribunal can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation. Accordingly, Issues No. 5 & 6 are decided in favour of the claimant-injured and against respondents No. 1 & 2. Issue No. 7. 14. It was for the respondents to prove this issue, have failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 7 are set aside and the said issues are decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Issue No. 4. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant has suffered 55% permanent disability and remained under treatment for about three months, by guess work, it can be held that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump sum, under the heads, ‘pain and sufferings’, ‘loss of amenities and ‘medical expenses’, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump sum, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 17. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Registry within six weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 18. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.