1 F.A.No.857/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.857 OF 2010. Bharat S/o Piraji Jadhav, Age 55 years, Occ.driver, R/o Ambewadi, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Appellant. Versus 1. The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,through its Divisional Manager Officer, Vinayakrao Patil Chowk, Station Road, Aurangabad. 2. Satish S/o Bapurao Dikle, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Kallamb, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.G.Dargad, advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.G.Kanade, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Ms.S.S.Adkine, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.03.2011. 2 F.A.No.857/10 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 4. The present appellant had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation on account of injury sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,200/- (Rupees thirty thousand two hundred). Being aggrieved by non-grant of the compensation, the appellant has filed the present Appeal. 5. Mr.Dargad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that car driver is responsible more for the accident, still, has fastened responsibility to the extent of 50% each. The learned counsel further contends that he had suffered 25% disability and 100% loss of 3 F.A.No.857/10 earning capacity, still the said aspect has not been considered. The appellant was guided by the advocate and as advised has led the evidence. The evidence of Doctor was not led only due to ignorance and the appellant be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to that effect. 6. Mr.Kanade, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the appellant on his own volition has failed to adduce evidence. It is not a case of non-grant of an opportunity and as such there is no need to remit the matter back. 7. Ms.Adkine, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the claimant having not proved the disability certificate, is not entitled for compensation. In fact, he was responsible for the accident as can be seen from the Panchanama and other evidence on record. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgment and the record. 4 F.A.No.857/10 9. The medical certificate showing that the appellant has suffered 25% disability is on record but the same was not proved in absence of evidence of the Doctor. In absence of the medical evidence, the said disability can not be proved nor the extent of loss of earning capacity can be proved. The appellant is not a literate person. He is a driver by profession and is guided by the advocate as to the nature of the evidence to be led. Though, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the car driver was more responsible for the accident then in such circumstances, the Court could not have fastened liability upon the claimant for the accident to the extent of 50% simply because in another case the responsibility of both opponents is held to be 50% each. Moreover, taking into account the fact that the parties are not literate persons and are not aware of the legal intricacies, I am inclined to allow opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, in respect of the accident and the disability. 10. In light of the above, I quash and set 5 F.A.No.857/10 aside the impugned order. Remit the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The parties if so advised, may adduce additional evidence. The Tribunal after consideration of the additional evidence, if any, adduced by the parties shall decide the said claim petition within a period of six (6) months after their appearance. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 25.4.2011. All points are kept open. 11. The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa85710