The court upheld the principle that the claimant's evidence, supported by witness testimony, can establish the occurrence of a motor accident due to negligent driving, and that the compensation granted should be just and reasonable.

( 1 ) THE claimant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The insurance company has filed cross-objections questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.

( 2 ) A few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal and cross-objections are as follows: the appellant who was working as a cooli has alleged that on 15-11-1983 at about 9 A. M. she was moving in anaveri-Holehonnur road and at that time a tiller driven by respondent 1 therein rashly and negligently came behind and dashed against her as a result, she fell down and the wheel of the tiller ran over crushing her left hand. She was immediately taken to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga where she was treated. This claim is disputed by the owner and the insurer who have inter alia contended that there is no motor accident and the claim is a false one. The parties have led in some evidence before the Tribunal in support of their respective contentions. On consideration of the same, by rejecting the contention of the respondents, the Tribunal has allowed the claim in part granting compensation of Rs. 12,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant submits that the total compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and low. Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the insurance company vehemently submits that the evidence of the claimant herself discloses that she has not filed any complaint before the police reporting the motor accident. The entry in the wound certificate clearly discloses that she sustained injuries while working. It is further submitted that if it is a lego-medical case, the medical officer would not have failed to report the matter to the concerned police and therefore submits that there is no acceptable evidence in proof of the accident itself and therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) IN the light of these submissions, the following questions arise for consideration: 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the tiller is correct? 2. If so, whether quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and adequate?

( 5 ) RE: Point No. 1. There is no complaint of accident to the police. The entries in the wound certificate disclose that the claimant-appellant was brought to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga, at about 12-45 P. M. on 15-11-1983. The claim petition is filed before the Tribunal roughly after two months. It is alleged that she sustained injuries while walking on the road as a result of negligent driving of the tiller. The claimant has also deposed before the Tribunal that the accident occurred while she was walking on the road and at that time the tiller came behind her and dashed against her. Her oral statement is supported by evidence of P. W. 3-Bhojappa who is stated to have taken her to hospital immediately after the accident. He has corroborated her statement.

( 6 ) SRI O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for respondent 2 contended that an adverse inference will have to be drawn for non-registration of a criminal case against the driver in a given case. This contention cannot be accepted. The claim is a summary civil proceedings wherein the claimant is required to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by independent evidence. Hence, non-registration of a police case regarding the accident does not give rise to any adverse inference that no such motor accident occurred. The further contention of the learned Counsel for respondent 2 that the medical Officer, who is duty bound to report the lego-medical case to the police, has not reported the same and this circumstance also is adverse to the claim of the claimant has no merit. It is not unusual for a Medical Officer of the hospital in not reporting the lego-medical case to the police. The failure on the part of the Medical Officer to exercise the basic/primary duty to report the lego-medical case t