ORDER : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. “12. In case of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries." "13. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident. This Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. explained “just compensation” in the following words:" "15. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and court must be on a large peripheral field.” "9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute.” "12. Prima Facie this Court is of the view that the Learned Tribunal has erred by not admitting Exhibit 12, the physical impairment certificate of the claimant as valid evidence on the ground that the same was not proved by the concerned doctor. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute.” "12. Prima Facie this Court is of the view that the Learned Tribunal has erred by not admitting Exhibit 12, the physical impairment certificate of the claimant as valid evidence on the ground that the same was not proved by the concerned doctor. As per Section 77 of the Evidence Act, a document or certificate issued by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is admissible without any formal proof, otherwise also, while deciding a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the strict rules of evidence do not apply."