In view of the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1, it is clear that the accident took place as contended by the petitioner. It has to be seen that the police issued FIR in Ex.A.1 and filed charge sheet in Ex.A.2. It appears that it is the case of the petitioner that he was treated at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and subsequently, he was treated by Dr.L.Ramulu (P.W.2). It may be fact that there may be some omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 may not be consistent with the documentary evidence and his evidence may be false to some extent. But if there are some omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2 or if the version of P.W.2 is not acceptable to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may reject the medical bills issued by P.W.2 or even the wound certificate issued by him. However, the Tribunal should fairly assess all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and come to an independent conclusion as to whether the petitioner sustained any injuries in the accident and whether those injuries are simple of grevious in nature and whether any reasonable compensation can be awarded to him. Merely because certain medical bills appears to be unbelievable or a part of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is unbelievable, that does not mean that the entire claim of the petitioner should be dismissed.
