IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2000 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.546/2000. 1. Smt. Dilshad Bi Khan, wife of late Shri Imam Khan, aged 35 years, and their children: 2. Miss Mahajabin Khan aged about 21 years. 3. Master Mansoor Khan, aged about 10 years, represented by appellant No.1, all residing at House No.111, Pedda, Margao, Goa. ... Appellants. VERSUS 1. Shri Mahadev R. Naik, resident of Sanguem, Goa. 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Station Road, Curchorem, Quepem, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. V.P. Thali, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. H.R. Bharne, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: N.N. MHATRE & N.N. MHATRE & N.N. MHATRE & P.V. P.V. P.V. HARDAS, JJ. HARDAS, JJ. HARDAS, JJ. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT: ( PER HARDAS, J. ) This appeal at the instance of the original claimants questions the correctness of the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao dated 9th October, 2000, in Claim Petition No.223/1994, awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,000 with future interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of the petition -- 2 -- till payment. 2. An application claiming compensation of Rs.23,04,000/- came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao on 25.4.1994, on account of the death of deceased by name Imam Khan, son of late Abdul Karim Khan who, on the date of the accident was stated to be aged 48 years. In the application the monthly income of the deceased was pleaded to be 2000 dirhams i.e. equivalent to Rs.16,000/- per month approximately. 3. In the present appeal, Misc. Civil Application No.546/2000 has been filed by the appellants/claimants on 18th November, 2000. Respondent No.1 though served, is absent when the matter is called out. None of the respondents have filed any reply objecting to this application of the appellants. By this application, the appellants seek permission to lead additional evidence to produce an envelope containing the letter of offer of service to the deceased made by his employer prior to his death. The learned Tribunal before whom a letter dated 30.10.1993 was produced, in respect of the re-employment of the deceased as driver, has not placed any reliance on the said letter, as the claimants could not produce on record the envelope which was received by the Claimants containing the said -- 3 -- letter. In paragraph 11, the learned Tribunal has given its findings. The learned Tribunal then concluded :- " I am not at all inclined to place any reliance on the letter dated 30.10.93 (marked ‘Y’), since the same does not appear to me to be genuine and which is otherwise not proved, on behalf of the claimants, and which apparently obtained subsequently, much after the filing of the petition, in the year 1995, for the purpose of obtaining enhanced compensation". 4. The appellants now seek to produce on record the sealed envelope containing the said letter which is alleged to have been received from the employer of the deceased and also letter of the Appellant No.1 dated 3rd October, 2000. The said letter is a vital piece of evidence which would be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable to the deceased. In the absence of any opposition on the part of the respondents, we are therefore inclined to allow Misc. Civil Application No.546/2000 permitting the appellants to lead additional evidence in respect of the production of the sealed envelope as stated in the application and the letter dated 3.10.2000 5. In the result therefore the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is -- 4 -- hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for permitting the appellants to lead additional evidence by way of production of letter dated 3.10.2000 and a sealed envelope containing the letter of appointment of the deceased evidencing that the deceased was supposed to join his duties in December, 1993. The learned Tribunal shall permit the appellants to examine such witnesses as are necessary for the production and for proving the said letters. Opportunity also to be given to the respondents to lead any additional evidence in rebuttal thereof. On recording of such additional evidence, the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the Claim Petition on merits preferably within four weeks thereafter. The Tribunal in the event it enhances the compensation shall take into consideration the compensation which is already awarded to the appellants. 6. With the above directions, First Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. R. & P. be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. NISHITA MHATRE, J. sl. P.V. HARDAS, J.