Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. Both these appeals are directed against the Common Awards of the Tribunal dated the 28th August, 1982 in relation to the same accident that took place on 3rd September, 1974. Ram Saran and Hakma Ram, the son and father, were going on cycle towards the village Rampura on Jaipur Sikar Road and were injured by truck No. REL 147 which was being driven by Jaswant Singh rashly and negligently, as alleged. The truck was going to Sikar and collided with the cyclist, as named above. On account of the collision both, Ram Saran and Hukma, fell down on the road along with cycle. The truck driver, as alleged, even did not give horn.
2. In the claim petition, Ram Saran made claim of Rs. 23,000/- and Hukma Ram for Rs. 40,000/-. Both of them remained in hospital for about 20 days. As alleged, they spent Rs. 3,000/- on treatment of each one of them. The Tribunal, after recording of the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that, the incident was on account of the negligent and rash driving of Jaswant Singh-driver.
3. Shri S.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the medical evidence consisting of medical expert was not produced in this case and, therefore, no compensation should have been awarded.
4. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/-as compensation to each, Hukma Ram and Ram Saran. The Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the medical evidence was not produced. It is significant to note that the non-applicants did not specifically plead that no injuries were caused to the father and son in 'this accident, although they resorted to evasive strategy of making general denial.
5. Shri Srivastava further fairly and frankly conceded that though Hukma Ram and Ram Saran examined, themselves, on oath and stated that they received injuries and got, themselves, treated in the hospital. The non-applicants have not examined any witness to contradict and deny, challenge or falsify this part of the statement of these two witnesses.
6. In my considered opinion, there cannot be any general rule of thumb unless medical expert is produced even unrebutted evidence of the injured cannot be accepted.
7. Primarily, the claimants who received injuries, have got examined, himself and there is nothing in cross-examination to smash their testimony, in this respect. It is true that the medical evidence could have been corroborative evidence of the claimants. But it should not be forgotten that, both, these claimants, are village people and, if they have not produced any medical evidence, merely on that count and ground, their claims cannot be rejected.
8. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains the provisions for compensation for the persons bodily injured or died as a measure of progressive social security welfare legislation. In such cases, it is the duty of the Tribunal to be liberal in awarding the compensation, once it is proved that the claimants received injuries or the deceased died on account of the rashness or negligence of the driver of the vehicle. It should also be kept in view that the recent trend of the legislature is to allow the compensation even where no fault is proved to some extent.
9. In the result, both the appeals fail and are, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit with costs and the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and upheld.