1 FA 1636.2009 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1636 OF 2009 Mangal Budha Patil Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Vadhoda, Tq. Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. .... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Jagannath Budha Patil Age : 43 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : New Bhampur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. Rajendra Bachraj Mor Age : Major, Occ. Business, R/o : Abhishek Agro Agency, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.P.Brahme, Advocate for Resp. No. 1 & 2. Mr. P.C.Mayure,Advocate holding for Mr. A.B.Kadethankar, Advocate for Resp. No.3. 2 FA 1636.2009 - ( J ) CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present Appeal is filed by the original claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner. It is the case of the present appellant that he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50 %. He had also produced medical bills amounting to Rs. 31,000/- and thereafter some more bills. The appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Mr. Vinod Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the present appellant had led his own evidence, but the Tribunal did not discuss nor considered the said evidence and in a very casual manner, has decided the claim petition. According to the learned counsel, there is no discussion about the evidence of negligence just because the criminal case was filed against the appellant. That can not be the sole criteria for coming to the conclusion that the appellant was negligent. The Tribunal has to independently scan the evidence. 3 FA 1636.2009 - ( J ) 4. Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Mayure, learned counsel holding for Mr. Kadethankar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supports the Judgment passed by the Tribunal and contend that the appellant has not led any independent evidence to show that he was not negligent. The F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellant. All these facts unequivocally go to establish that the appellant was negligent and that has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Even the appellant had not made his Insurance company as party. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgments and the record made available to me. 6. Perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that the Tribunal has not at all discussed the evidence. The oral evidence of the claimant and his cross examination has not been discussed anywhere. The appellant himself is the owner of the tractor. As such, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the owner of the tractor is not made party. The perusal of the Judgment shows that even the bills which have been filed are not considered and the evidence and the circumstances on the basis of which the Tribunal has arrived at conclusion about the negligence is also not discussed. 4 FA 1636.2009 - ( J ) 7. In that light of the matter, I deem it appropriate to remit the parties to the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to decide the said petition afresh. 8. In the result, the impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside. The parties shall appear before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule on 5/4/2011. The parties may adduce additional evidence, if they so desire and the Tribunal shall decide the claim petition of the appellant afresh within the period of six ( 6 ) months thereafter. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] knp/FA 1636.2009