1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APEAL NO.1984 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.A.S.Zarekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.P.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 27.04.2011. 1. Heard leaned counsels. 2. The present appellant is original claimant. The claimant had filed a claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the death of one Rohan who was son of the appellant. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- (Rupees three lacs four thousand only) along with interest but exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was 2 not holding a valid driving license. 3. Mr.Zarekar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that even the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer was filed on record before the Tribunal but the same was not exhibited. In fact, the same is the public document and should have been relied upon. The Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that driver was holding driving license only to drive light motor vehicle (Transport). The Certificate produced on record in the present appeal shows that even the said driver was possessing a valid driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle. 4. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that endorsement in the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer and filed before the Tribunal shows that the driver was holding license to drive light motor vehicle and was not holding a valid driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly considered the same. 5. I have allowed the application filed by the claimant U/o 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for 3 production of additional evidence i.e. the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Shrirampur certifying that the driver Ashok was holding license to drive heavy goods vehicle (Transport) at the relevant time. The authenticity of the said document is disputed by the Insurance Company. In light of that, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Tribunal as there is some anomaly in the two certificates that are issued and are on record. It would be in the fitness of things to afford an opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence which has been produced in this Court. 6. In the result, the impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tribunal shall consider the additional evidence i.e. certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Shrirampur and after considering the oral evidence led on that document, shall decide the claim petition afresh. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 13.6.2011. The Tribunal shall decide the claim 4 petition within a period of six (6) months thereafter. 7. The First Appeal is disposed of with aforesaid directions. 8. R & P be sent back to the Tribunal. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.27.04.2011. asp/office/fa1984.10