1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2006 Pallavi Pritesh Khara Appellant V E R S U S Jafar Khan Mulla Khan and others Respondent Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. B.T. Wakh, Advocate holding for Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for respondents No. 5 & 6 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C. Petition No. 743 of 1997. 3. The motor accident took place in November, 1995. At that time, the appellant was merely 20 years old. She was unmarried then. The appellant was a passenger in a private vehicle of her uncle. This vehicle, at the relevant time, was following an S.T. bus on a public road. The S.T. Bus suddenly stopped, and so, the vehicle, in which the appellant was traveling, collided on the S.T. Bus on the rear side. Due to the collision, the appellant sustained injuries including a fracture of her leg. According to her, despite of medical treatment, 2 she sustained 5% permanent partial disablement. She stated that due to such disablement, her marriage prospects got prejudiced. She demanded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- as compensation to her. This Judgment is challenged in this appeal. 4. The appellant’s Advocate, it seems, did not take proper efforts to prove her permanent partial disablement although he placed on record the medical certificate showing that she had sustained 5% permanent partial disablement. He should have examined the medical officer, who has issued such certificate. In absence of such proof, the Court below did not appreciate this part of the appellant’s case. In my view, the appellant deserves a fresh opportunity to adduce further evidence in support of her case, especially the permanent partial disablement etc. Secondly, the learned Judge of the Tribunal did not appreciate the case of the appellant, when she said that due to the permanent disablement, her marriage prospects got prejudiced. He observed that since during pendency of the claim petition the appellant could get married, there was no question of awarding compensation for disablement and disfigurement. The learned Judge of the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the permanent partial disablement would be a permanent feature of the appellant’s figure and she would suffer from such disablement and disfigurement for her entire life. So, her getting married during the pendency of the claim petition, is not relevant circumstance for denying her adequate compensation. 5. I think, the case deserves to be remanded back to the lower Court, where the appellant would be able to adduce not only more evidence, but I expect even the learned Judge of the lower Court would appreciate the case with adequate seriousness. 6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award are set aside. The Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 743 of 1997 is 3 remanded back to the lower Court. The parties are allowed to lead further evidence in support of their cases. Tribunal shall decide the case on merits expeditiously as far as possible within six months. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/sa/750/06