1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D. K. Desai for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Hitesh N. Acharya for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 being owner of the vehicle in question though served has remained absent. Appellant is original claimant whereas respondents are original opponents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha @ Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 986 of 1999, wherein by impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2010, the tribunal has while allowing the application for compensation filed by the present appellant, awarded an amount of Rs.56,510/- with 9% interest and cost in favour of the claimant for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident.

2. Though the appeal is mainly for quantum of compensation by the claimant and, thereby when there is no cross – appeal either by the owner or insurance company, now it becomes clear that victim of the accident and its result is not disputed. However, even for scrutinizing the impugned judgment that whether the award of compensation is just and reasonable or not, the basic information needs to be recollected before deciding this appeal finally. The relevant information can be summarized as under:

Incident:-

Appellant – claimant was walking towards his house from the marriage in the village on 06.05.1999, Jeep No. GJ-2-A-8378 owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 was driven by its driver respondent No.1 in such rash and negligent manner and in full speed that he could not control the same and thereby he dashed his jeep on the back of the appellant. Thereby appellant has sustained serious and grievous injuries on his both legs and more particularly fracture on his right leg. Therefore, appellant has claimed Rs.1,60,000/- .

3. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, following information is material:-

Name of the victim	Ramjibhai Becharbhai Damor
Result of the incident	Injured
Age of the victim	50 years
Occupation	Agricultural work + Labour work + Cooking
Income of the victim	Rs.3,000/- p.m. as monthly income
Injury	Fracture of right shaft. Permanent disability of 18% of the lower limb, which is agreed to be considered as 10% for body as a whole
Compensation awarded by the tribunal	Rs.31,200/- towards future loss of income; Rs.7000/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.8,310/- towards medical charges; Rs.6000/- towards special diet; Rs.4000/- towards actual loss of income;
Total:	Rs.56,510/-

4. In background of above details, if we peruse the available Records and Proceedings received from the tribunal, it becomes clear that there is categorical evidence by the claimant that he has to pay Rs.16,000/- to the doctor, which includes Rs.4000/- for room charges and Rs.5000/- towards operation charges, so also Rs.3500/- for transportation. Thereby, he has categorically deposed that he has to spend Rs.25000/- towards medicine and allied charges because of injuries sustained by him. Whereas, tribunal has awarded Rs.8310/- considering that, bills are only of such amount. It is admitted position that there cannot be bill of each and every item and, therefore, if there are bills of medicines for more than Rs.8000/- then it can certainly be considered that there would be similar or more expenditure for hospitalization etc. and only because appellant is unable to produce receipt by the doctor, it cannot be said that he has not spent anything for doctor and hospitalization charges etc. Though it can be said that one is supposed to prove such expenditure by reliable and cogent evidence, it cannot be ignored that victims are not litigants but they are claimants and they are not expected to collect documentary evidence first, rather than getting better treatment and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to ignore such fact and not to award reasonable