Basheer, J.

1. The appellant was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on August 26, 1992. At the time of the accident, he was working as a driver in M/s. Grasim Industries, Mavoor, Calicut and drawing a salary of Rs. 4306.66 as could be seen from Ext.A3 salary certificate. The offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1 was admittedly insured with respondent No.2. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

2. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the 1st respondent was negligent in causing the accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, what is the quantum?

3. Who is liable to pay the compensation?"

3. The Tribunal dealt with issue Nos.1 and 2 thus:

"Issue No.1 : Ext.A1 is the F.I.R. registered against R1 for negligent driving. There is no contra evidence. Hence I find R1 was negligent. Issue No.2 Petitioner was 58 years old who suffered

1) Comminuted fracture upper 1/3 of tibia and fracture fibula with punch wound 1.5 cm. diametre at the fracture site. 2) Lacerated wound muscle deep 1/3 of leg medial aspect. 3) Multiple injuries all over the body. Petitioner is entitled to the following compensation. Transport to hospital - Rs. 500/-Medical expenses - Rs. 561/-Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/-Loss of wages for 11 months - Rs. 22,000/-Total - Rs.33,061/-"

4. We have extracted the relevant portion of the award to express our anguish and anxiety about the manner in which certain Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are dealing with claim petitions that are being filed by the victims of accidents. There is yet another reason why we have chosen to do so in this case. We have had occasion to deal with quite a few awards passed by this particular Tribunal, while sitting in this jurisdiction. It has come to our notice that this Tribunal has been adopting this method of disposal almost on a regular basis. We are of the view that it is time that the learned Judge is reminded that dealing with claim petitions of accident-victims is not such a casual, trivial or lackadaisical exercise.

5. It has to be borne in mind that every litigant who approaches the court, hopes and believes that his case will be considered and dealt with the requisite seriousness that is expected from a judicial Forum. Undoubtedly, frivolous claims should be ruthlessly discarded. But in deserving cases, the Tribunal must show empathy to the unfortunate victims and they must get adequate compensation commensurate with the damage caused by the accident. If we peruse the manner in which issue No.2 has been dealt with by the learned Judge in this case, it is apparent that there has been no application of the judicial mind at all.

6. It is true that Tribunals have been constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act with a view to simplify the procedure for grant of compensation to the accident-victims. But the primary objective is to dole out the benefit of this welfare legislation to those who fall prey to reckless and hazardous driving that is a common feature on our roads these days.

7. Appellant had produced Ext.A10 disability certificate in which reference had been made to the various injuries sustained by him. The doctor assessed the disability of the appellant as 23% after examining him and considering the resultant difficulties/discomforts being faced by him. However, the Tribunal did not even advert or refer to the above certificate while considering issue No.2.

8. It can be understood if the Court/Tribunal takes a view either way about the tenability or acceptability of a piece of evidence, be it oral or documentary, after due consideration of the relevant aspects. But the failure of the Tribunal to make even a cursory reference to the crucial document is wholly unjustified. We do not propose to make any further observation on this aspect. In our view, the message should be clear by whatever we have indicated above.

9. In this context, we