IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6794 OF 2008. Shaikh Azar s/o Chand. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS Dnyanoba Machindra Gaikwad and anr. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.C. Mayure, Advocate holding for Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Manoj Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 31st JULY, 2009. PER COURT: 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18th October, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in an application below Exh.18 in MACP No.119/2007. 2. The petitioner herein is the original claimant in MACP No.119 of 2007 filed before the M.A.C.T., Beed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner / claimant that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He has sustained 30% permanent disability. On account of said disability, he cannot carry out his labour work. His disability is 100% functional disability and therefore, the claimant filed MACP No.119 of 2007, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- before the tribunal. 4. The matter was posted by the tribunal for recording evidence on 5th September, 2008. Thereafter, it was adjourned for some reason to 26th September, 2008. Again the matter was adjourned to 18th October, 2008. On 18th October, 2008, the petitioner submitted his affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief. He had also filed an application for production of documents. The documents were supplied alongwith the list attached to the application for production of documents. The claimant had submitted certified copy of Medico Legal Certificate issued by Medical Officer, dated 17.12.2006, the copy of the salary certificate issued by the employer of the claimant dated 31.8.2008, the copy of an application submitted by respondent No.1 before the J.M.F.C., Beed seeking return of the motorcycle, which was seized during the investigation of the accident. The claimant had also submitted a copy of the charge-sheet filed by the Police authorities against the driver of the motorcycle. The petitioner submits that the documents are necessary to prove his case. 5. The petitioner submits that the documents were tendered in the tribunal before commencement of trial or recording of evidence and the same ought to have been taken on record. Those documents were referred in the affidavit submitted in lieu of examination-in-chief and it is prayed that eh same should have been exhibited. The Presiding Officer of the tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner for production of the documents without assigning any reason. The order passed by the tribunal discloses that the application is rejected on the ground that production of documents is at late stage. Hence the same came to be disallowed. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, I am of the considered view that the documents which were submitted along with affidavit by the petitioner were necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and issue involved in it. The order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed without assigning any reasons whatsoever is not sustainable. The documents which were tendered by the petitioner are basic documents without which, the claim cannot be decided properly. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it clearly appears that even the Presiding Officer did not bother to give proper reasons in support of his order. Such an order is not sustainable. The same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The impugned order dated 18th October, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Beed below Exh.18 in MACP No.119 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) and disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/#