IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.597 OF 2001 BETWEEN Polavarapu Prabhakara Rao. …APPELLANT AND Vellanki Roopachand and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. U.P. Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Venkat Rao The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant in O.P.No.304 of 1997 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by award dated 18.09.2000 in the motor vehicle accident dated 19.08.1996. 2. The vehicle driven by the first respondent met with an accident resulting in the claimant, who was one of the occupants of the said vehicle, receiving serious injury to his left eye. A claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was filed by the claimants in O.P.No.304 of 1997. On evidence, the tribunal found that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the first respondent – driver was charge sheeted and convicted by the criminal Court and ordered to pay fine. Taking all the circumstances into account, the finding of rash and negligent driving was recorded in favour of the claimant. To the extent of compensation, the tribunal found and allowed the medical expenses to the extent covered by the medical bills exhibited and on account of absence of disability certificate the tribunal had to go by Ex.A8 wound certificate, which only stated about injury to the right eye whereas the case of the claimant is that he sustained injury to the left eye. The evidence of P.W.3 was taken into consideration by the tribunal that the injury is grievous and the left eye is totally blind. However, the tribunal found that in support of the aforesaid evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, no disability certificate from competent Ophthalmologist was produced and thereby proceeded to think that the claim made by the claimant is highly excessive. However, the tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- inclusive of medical expenses of Rs.3,000/- incurred by him and allowed the claim petition to that extent. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 3. Now the claimant has also filed an application to receive the medical bills and receipts as additional evidence by filing documents along with CMAMP.No.12195 of 2004. Though no reasons are given, only averment made in the affidavit is subsequent to the judgment in OP he could secure the medical bills. Learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal seeks to rely upon the said documents. 4. Various contentions are advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the disability suffered by the claimant. However, even now no disability certificate is filed. It is evident from the medical bills and receipts, which are produced as additional evidence, that the said documents comprise of not only bills and receipts but also train tickets and reservations and many other documents, which are for the first time, produced as additional evidence. The said documents require to be properly admitted in evidence with a liberty to other side to adduce rebuttal evidence, if any. In the facts of the circumstances of the case, therefore, I am satisfied that the said additional evidence will have to be looked into for the purpose of assessing the claim made by the appellant. Since this Court in an appeal cannot, for the first time, look into the said documents, which are not properly received in evidence, I deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to remit the matter for fresh consideration of the tribunal below. The additional documents sought to be produced along with CMP.No.12195 of 2004 shall be returned to the appellant and he shall have the liberty to file these documents before the tribunal below as additional evidence along with other documents, which he wishes to produce. On such documents being produced before the tribunal below, the tribunal shall reconsider the matter in the light of the said evidence, after giving opportunity to the respondents to produce rebuttal evidence, if any and pass appropriate orders on the claim of the appellant. Since the claim petition is sufficiently old the tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the OP afresh preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed and OP.No.304 of 2007 is remitted to the tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 18, 2009 DSK