By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused record.

2. Present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the impugned award dated 31.1.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bahraich.

3. An accident took place on 30.5.2003 with a Jeep bearing No. U.P.40-A3800. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. In consequence, it fell down and over turned in a pit adjoining to the road. The injured claimant Neelam Rastogi in the said accident, suffered with certain grievous injuries, fracture in hand, leg and in body. She was admitted in King George Medical University and had undergone treatment. and in consequence thereof, she approached Tribunal for payment of compensation.

4. The finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability. Though she suffered from fracture on account of the accident in question but in absence of any permanent disability, the Tribunal appreciated the document produced by the claimant and assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs.40000/- towards operation and other expenses and Rs. 20000/- towards expenses incurred over bills of medicines etc.).

5. It appears that the claimant was referred to King George Medical University, Lucknow but from the record it is borne out that she had undergone treatment in private hospital namely, Mayo Medical Centre. On account of her ill-treatment at the Medical Centre, she was again admitted in Satya Hospital and later on, in Shafi Ortho Medical Centre. Since from the certificate furnished by the claimant it cannot be proved that she suffered from permanent disability, the Tribunal declined to accept the contention that the claimant suffered with permanent disability. Another certificate produced by the claimant was of district Shrawasti though she had undergone medical treatment at Lucknow and Bahraich. The husband of the claimant is possessing a medical store in district Shrawasti. Accordingly, the Tribunal has drawn an inference that the certificate produced by the claimant of district Shrawasti is fake one. The claimant should have produced required certificate of disability and treatment from district Bahraich and Lucknow from the hospitals where she had undergone the treatment. The Tribunal considered other material facts with regard to loss of income and recorded a finding that the claimant does not possess any medical shop as pleaded. Hence contention with regard to loss of income also seems to be not sustainable.

6. While assailing the impugned award it has been submitted by the claimant appellant’s counsel that Tribunal has not considered the certificates produced with regard to permanent disability and loss of income. The argument advanced by the appellant’s counsel seems to be misconceived. The certificate produced from Shrawasti Hospital has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal since neither whole nor part of the cause of action co-relate with the district Shrawasti. Entire treatment provided to the claimant was in Bahraich and Lucknow. Hence it was held by the Tribunal from the material document and the cogent documentary evidence as well as oral evidence that the treatment of the claimant generated from the district Bahraich and Lucknow.

7. However, a perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation or damage on account of pain, suffering and trauma in consequence of the injuries. In a case in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) TAC 785 (SC), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered earlier cases and held that Courts may grant compensation with regard to non-pecuniary damages. The relevant para 4 and 5 from the aforesaid judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) are reproduced as under:

“4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compe