( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 428 OF 1996 1. Gajanan s/o Ramesh Shinde, Age: 8 years, Minor u/g real natural father - Ramesh K. Shinde. 2. Ramesh s/o Kondararao Shinde, Age: Yelki, Tal. Kalamnuri, District Parbhani. .. Appellants Versus 1. Gulab s/o Baban Kale, Age: 22 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Yerandeshwar, Tq.Basmat, District Parbhani. 2. Sakharamji s/o Kale, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., R/o.Yerandeshwar, Tq.Basmat, District Parbhani. 3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch, Hingoli, Post Office road, Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents ( 2 ) ... Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.R. Bharad, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 20.04.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. In this case, learned Advocate of the appellants states that this matter deserves to be remanded as the advocate of the appellants has not advised the appellants to lead evidence regarding permanent disablement. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Ex- Officio Member, M.A.C.T. Parbhani in M.A.C.P. No. 85/1994 on 01-03-1996. The original petitioner Gajanan is the minor son of Ramesh who was examined as sole witness at Exhibit-31. It is the case of the appellant Gajanan who was then 8 years of age, that on 20-05-1994 at about 2-30 p.m. near Tupa Pati on Kalamnuri road, he was travelling in jeep No. MH/22B-7106 ( 3 ) which was owned by respondent No.2 Sakharamji Kale and driven by respondent No. 1 Gulab Kale. The jeep was travelling from Shembal Pimpri towards Yerandeshwar on Kalamnuri road. The jeep was in high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Suddenly, it went out of the road and turned turtle. In the accident, the appellant Gajanan sustained injuries to his right knee. He was admitted in Rural Hospital and thereafter, referred to Civil Hospital, Parbhani. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Parbhani from 24-05-1994 to 01-06-1994 and thereafter, he was treated as outdoor patient. He spent Rs.5000/-. He stated that there was permanent disablement. Total claim made is of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs.13,000/- to the appellant Gajanan by its judgment and award dated 01-03-1996, which is challenged in this appeal. 3. The only point raised before this Court is whether it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter and to allow the appellant to lead further evidence. 4. The only evidence led in this case is of Ramesh Shinde, the father of the petitioner Gajanan. He stated that he was ( 4 ) travelling in another jeep which was behind the jeep in which Gajanan was travelling. Ramesh Shinde did not say anything regarding how the accident had taken place but simply stated that he was travelling in jeep that followed jeep in which Gajanan was travelling and then he added that Gajanan was taken to hospital at Kalamnuri after the accident. Thereafter, he was admitted in Civil Hospital at Parbhani. Gajanan sustained injuries on his knee and hand. He incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- for medical treatment and Gajanan was limping while walking. So, he claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. No other evidence is led. Discharge Card issued by Government Hospital which is at Exhibit-37 does not show any fracture. One disablement certificate is at Exhibit-36. Disablement certificate Exhibit-36 shows that disability was temporary when the examination was made. It is not stated that it is a permanent disablement. 5. Learned Advocate Mrs. A.N. Ansari wants to examine Doctor who had examined the patient. In view of this, in order to give opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence regarding permanent disablement, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded, ( 5 ) allowing the petitioner to lead further evidence regarding permanent nature of disablement and for leading other evidence to quantify compensation in case it is a permanent disablement. The appeal is partly allowed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/fa428.96