ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment passed in Claim Case No. 06 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the claim application preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for permanent disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident has been dismissed. 2. As per the case of the claimant, he was aged about 32 years and a driver of a tanker bearing Registration No. BR-13G-5675 which met with an accident with another truck bearing Registration No. WB-23- 8075 on 02.07.2005. Accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. WB-23-8075. Both the vehicles involved in the accident were under the insurance cover. The tanker being driven by the claimant was insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.2) and the truck bearing Registration No. WB-23-8075 was insured by United India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.6). 3. The learned Tribunal framed following main issues: Issue No.III: Was the driver of both the vehicles having valid driving license? Issue No.IV: Was the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle Truck No. WB-23-8075? Issue No.V: Was the claimant entitled to get claim and from whom? 4. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application by recording a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of truck bearing Registration No. WB-23-8075 and further the medical bills were not accepted, as the doctor- Dr. S.N. Yadav was not examined nor the prescription issued by him was not produced and exhibited. 5. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 299/2005 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338/34 of Indian Penal Code on the next day of accident against the driver of both the vehicle (Ext.1) on the basis of fardbeyan of Chowkidar. The police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet (Ext.2) against the driver of both the vehicles. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted for treatment at Sadar Hospital Hazaribagh on 02.07.2005 and a certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh has been adduced into evidence (Ext.3). The police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet (Ext.2) against the driver of both the vehicles. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted for treatment at Sadar Hospital Hazaribagh on 02.07.2005 and a certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh has been adduced into evidence (Ext.3). The claimant also suffered permanent disability in the said accident and in proof, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board has been adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.4. These materials on record proved the accident and injuries suffered by the claimant. 6. It is submitted and rightly so, that in a claim case the proof of a fact is to be made on the basis of pre-ponderance of probability and on this documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of the claimant himself (CW1) established that the claimant sustained permanent disability in the said accident. The Tribunal brushed aside all these evidences only on the ground that the prescription of the orthopedic surgeon was not annexed in the medical bills. 7. It is further argued that the charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of both the vehicles but CW1 who was the victim of the accident has categorically stated that in para 4 of his examination-in- chief on affidavit that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by another truck which was speeding towards it. As a result of accident, he became unconscious and regained his sense in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. He has also narrated in detail his treatment by Dr. S.N. Yadav at Ranchi. 8. It is argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the claimant was himself responsible for the accident and, therefore, he cannot claim the compensation for his own wrong. Further, the disability certificate as well as a certificate of treatment in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh is after a lapse of more than four years and neither the orthopedic surgeon nor the doctor, who examined the claimant after accident, has been examined. Therefore, these documents cannot be relied upon in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 7 SCC 305 (para 9). Lastly, it is submitted that the medical bills were not accepted by the Tribunal for the reasons that the prescription was not produced. 9. Therefore, these documents cannot be relied upon in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 7 SCC 305 (para 9). Lastly, it is submitted that the medical bills were not accepted by the Tribunal for the reasons that the prescription was not produced. 9. Having gone through the Judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, I find it somewhat disconcerting that the Tribunal having framed issues, has not discussed and separately recorded finding on each issue, rather the findings on all issues, rolled up in paragraph no.17 of the Judgment has been given. 10. It is not in dispute that accident did take place involving both the vehicles on the said date, time and place of the accident. Factum of accident has received imprimatur of the Tribunal and has not been challenged. 11. The point for determination is if the claimant was solely responsible for the accident or it was a case of contributory negligence? 12. As discussed above, the FIR (Ext-1) was lodged against the drivers of both the vehicles and on investigation chargesheet (Ext-2) was also filed against both for causing accident by rash and negligent driving. Claimant (CW-1) who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident has deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. He has not stated the number of the truck in the examination-in-chief, the omission will have no bearing, but since the factum of accident involving Truck No. WB- 23-8075, as involvement of the truck in the accident has been adequately proved by FIR and the charge-sheet. 13. Learned Tribunal has not even referred to the oral evidence of the claimant, or assigned any specific reason for not accepting the oral and documentary evidence of contributory negligence resulting in the accident. CW.1 is the sole eye witness and no contrary evidence was led on behalf of the opposite party. There is no vital contradiction in his account to discard his testimony. Ext-3 is a certificate issued on 14.03.2008 that Indradeo Yadav had been admitted on 02.07.2005 for treatment of injuries in a motor vehicle accident, and was discharged on the same day for better treatment elsewhere. Evidence in any case is to be looked into its totality, and mere failure to produce the prescription cannot be the basis to ignore the other evidence on record. Evidence in any case is to be looked into its totality, and mere failure to produce the prescription cannot be the basis to ignore the other evidence on record. Under the circumstance, the finding that accident was the result of negligence solely on the part of the claimant is perverse, and without any evidence and is set aside. Since it was a case of head-on collision by both the vehicles and charge-sheet has also been submitted against both, therefore this Court is of the view that accident was the outcome of 50% negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. 14. Argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that permanent disability certificate was issued after an inordinate delay is without any factual basis. A bare perusal of Ext-4 will show the date of issuance to be 22.09.2005, i.e. on the same year and month. Even otherwise, the authority relied upon by the Insurance Company does not lay a proposition of law that, if the disability certificate is issued after two years of the accident it cannot be accepted. Claim in the said case was not rejected solely for the reason of the disability certificate being obtained after some delay. Principle to cull out a ratio decidendi has been set out in State of Gujarat v. Utility Users' Welfare Assn. , (2018) 6 SCC 21 : “114. In order to test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case. This test has been followed to imply that the ratio decidendi is what is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case. “In order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent”, according to John Chipman Grey [ Another distinguished jurist who served as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.], “it must be an opinion, the formation of which, is necessary for the decision of a particular case”. 15. “In order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent”, according to John Chipman Grey [ Another distinguished jurist who served as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.], “it must be an opinion, the formation of which, is necessary for the decision of a particular case”. 15. For the reasons as discussed above, a liability to pay compensation of 50% is fixed on the insurer (R-6) of the Truck No. WB-23-8075 for causing 45% disability to the claimant in the motor vehicle accident. I also find that when the accident and injury to the claimant has been proved beyond any doubt, there was no reason to discard the bill of medicines Ext-7 to 7/2 for want of prescription of the attending doctor. 16. The claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation as detailed under: Sl. No. Heads Calculations 1. Annual income taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs 2000/- Rs 24,000/- 2. 40% Future Prospect taking the age of 32 years Rs 9,600 + Rs 24,000 = Rs 33,600/- 3. 45% disability Rs. 15,120/- 4. Applying multiplier of 16 Rs. 15,120/- x 16 = Rs. 2,41,920/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,660/- 6. Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/- 7. Grand Total Rs. 2,67,580/- Under the circumstance United India Insurance Company Ltd (Respondent no. 6) is directed to pay 50% of Rs. 2,67,580/- to the claimant, since it is a case of contributory negligence, with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application within a month of this order, by delivering an account payee cheque in the name of the Claimant to the Tribunal. It goes without saying that the amount already paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant shall be deducted. Miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.