JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.K. Dutta. Also heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16.7.2014 passed by learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 64/2011. 3. Briefly stated the case of the claimant (appellant herein) is that on 02.10.2010 while he was proceeding towards Dhaligaon in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AS-26/C-0428 from Bongaigaon then suddenly on the road the vehicle fell down due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. Immediately, he was taken to Bongaigaon Lower Assam Hospital and he was treated there as an indoor patient upto 06.10.2010 and later on he was taken to GMCH, Guwahati on 8.10.2010 and treated there as indoor patient upto 18.10.2010. After releasing from hospital, he was given treatment by private doctor. 4. The claimant preferred the claim petition praying for compensation for the injury he sustained due to the Road Traffic Accident. 5. The learned Tribunal issued notice to the driver, owner of the said vehicle and in turn, all of them contested the case by filing their written statement. The driver and the owner of the vehicle in their joint written statement contended that they were not negligent in driving the vehicle and in fact, due to sudden crossing of dogs the accident happened, while the driver tried to save the dogs, otherwise there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver made the prayer to absolve him from the liability of the compensation by submitting that the vehicle was duly insured with The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and he has a valid driving license. 6. The Insurance Company in their written statement denied to have any personal knowledge of the accident and submitted that their liability is restricted to the fulfillment of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. On the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. 1. Whether Vehicle No. AS-26/C-0428 was involved in the accident, if so, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle ? 2. 7. On the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. 1. Whether Vehicle No. AS-26/C-0428 was involved in the accident, if so, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle ? 2. Whether the claimant Sri Gautom Ghosh sustained bodily injuries in motor vehicle accident due to the use of the vehicle No. AS-26/C-0428 ? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extent and by whom it is payable ? 8. In course of proceeding the evidence of the claimant was recorded and on the basis of evidence and documents, learned Tribunal held that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. But however, denying the medical documents that was filed in the case, by the claimant it was held that he did not suffer any serious injury in the said accident but sustained simple injury on his person and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation by calculating only the loss of income for 4 (four) months that was Rs. 3,000/- per month. 9. Challenging the aforesaid award, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the said award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence so furnished by the claimant in the said case. It has been pointed out that even though the learned Tribunal held about fracture injury sustained by the claimant while deciding the issue No. 3 but arriving at the decision, the same was not counted by the learned Tribunal. 10. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also gone through the LCR. 11. It is to be noted that the claimant/appellant has submitted a large number of medical documents vide Ext-4 to 15 as mentioned in his evidence but unfortunately the same was not sealed and signed by the Court which was the duty on the part of the Court to verify the same as soon as it is filed by affidavit, which was not done in the process. It would be unjustified, if the said document is not counted which is already part of the record while filing evidence of the claimant. It would be unjustified, if the said document is not counted which is already part of the record while filing evidence of the claimant. Accordingly this Court is inclined to accept the medical document that has been annexed by the claimant which reveals that an amount to Approx. Rs 28,000/- was incurred by claimant while in his treatment. 12. On the next, it is to be noted that the claimant immediately after the accident was hospitalized for his treatment and also suffering from fracture injury in the femur left, multiple rib fracture left and the doctor advised for operation and further medical documents that has been furnished, also support about such injuries sustained by the claimant, which is obviously a simple injury as held by the learned Tribunal. 13. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is also found that he might have incurred certain amount of expenses while continuing his statement because a person having fracture injury on the femur has to take help of others and there is some sort of restriction for his movement. 14. Taking into account all above, it is found that it is a fit case to grant some sort of enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant, which is calculated as below. i. Medical Expenses Rs. 28,000/- ii. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- iii. Miscellaneous Expenses Rs. 20,000/- iv. Earlier loss of (assessed) Rs. 12,000/- Total Rs. 90,000/- The aforesaid amount will carry 6 per cent interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 15. The respondent/Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant by adjusting the earlier amount already paid, if any, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today before the concerned Tribunal and claimant can withdraw the same on due identification by engaged counsel. Return the LCR.