JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Appellant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 2893, a tanker, by which kerosene purchased by one Gajadhar Agarwal was being transported. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of another vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 8001 and in the said vehicle also kerosene belonging to said Gajadhar Agarwal was being transported. Both the vehicles left Berhampur on 30th of April, 1982. During the next morning when both the vehicles were moving one after the other, the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 following the vehicle of the Appellant, the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 struck against the vehicle which was going in the front as a result of which the front vehicle belonging to the Appellant capsized. This accident occurred, according to the Appellant, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to Respondent No. 1. He, therefore, filed an application claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 96,816.10 which according to him is towards the damage caused to his vehicle. In the claim application also a claim had been made for damage to the kerosene oil which was being carried in the vehicle, but the said dispute no longer remains the subject-matter of this appeal. This application of the Appellant was registered as M.J.C. No. 94 of 1982. 2. The said Gajadhar Agarwal who had purchased the kerosene and was getting it transported through the two vehicles also filed an application claiming compensation for the loss of kerosene in question which was numbered as M.J.C. No. 98 of 1982. Both these applications were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle belonging to Journal Singh (Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal) for which the accident took place and when a moving vehicle dashed from behind with such load, it would be natural to go out of way and overturn at any moment and, therefore, the entire liability should be fixed on Journal Singh's driver and he should pay the compensation for the rash and negligent act of his driver. Having held the driver of the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 responsible for the loss in question, the Tribunal further allowed the claim of Gajadhar Agarwal, claimant in MJC No. 98 of 1982 and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount. But so far as the Appellant claimant is concerned, the Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence for the claim in question. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Basu, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that admittedly the vehicle of the Appellant having been found to have been damaged to a great extent on account of the accident in question and the Tribunal having found the driver of Respondent No. l's vehicle to be negligent and rash, the Tribunal committed serious error of law in totally rejecting the claim of the Appellant. The learned Counsel further contends that there were sufficient materials before the Tribunal proving the damage in question and, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. In this Court an application had been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, to take some documents as additional evidence. According to Mr. Basu, these documents had been produced before the Tribunal though not exhibited and the Tribunal committed an error in not considering those documents particularly when it is the duty of the Tribunal to do justice between the parties. 4. Respondent No. 1 though had entered appearance through counsel, yet at the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel was not present. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, however, was present. 5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant got himself examined and four other persons were also examined on his behalf. So far as the damage in question to the Appellant's vehicle is concerned, apart from the evidence of the claimant-Appellant himself, the estimate prepared by a garage owner was proved through PW 3 and was exhibited as Exh. 1. PW 3 himself is a motor mechanic. Exh. 4, the report of the M.V.I., also indicates the extent of damage caused to the vehicle of the Appellant. It is true, as observed by the learned Tribunal, that the Appellant failed in his duty to adduce sufficient evidence for quantification of the compensation in question. 1. PW 3 himself is a motor mechanic. Exh. 4, the report of the M.V.I., also indicates the extent of damage caused to the vehicle of the Appellant. It is true, as observed by the learned Tribunal, that the Appellant failed in his duty to adduce sufficient evidence for quantification of the compensation in question. But on that account, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation particularly when the extent of damage to his vehicle could be assessed on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 as well as the report of the M.V.I. The documents filed here along with the application for additional evidence indicate the price of different materials which were necessary for the repair of the vehicle. But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not think it appropriate to take those documents into consideration at the appellate stage without giving due opportunity to Respondent No. 1 to controvert the same and in my opinion, the interests of justice would be better served by remanding the matter to the Tribunal for re-determination in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the Appellant to produce fresh evidence as well as by giving an opportunity to Respondent No. 1 to produce any rebuttal evidence if so desired. 6. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, the insurance company, contends that in the event the Tribunal awards compensation, the liability of the insurance company is only to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- in view of Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it was on the date of the accident in question. There is no doubt that the Tribunal will look to the said provision while finally disposing of the application and the liability of the insurance company should be fixed in accordance with law. 7. In the result, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal in M.J.C. No. 94 of 1982 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for re-disposal in accordance with the observations made in this judgment by giving due opportunities to the parties concerned for the purposes indicated earlier. This appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed