JUDGMENT Shri Pawnekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal granted only four months time to the appellant to examine the necessary witnesses and on account of such short span of time the appellant was unable to procure necessary doctors for the purpose of proving the expenditure which he incurred in the medical treatment which was a long one and very much expensive. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have given more time to the appellant to enable him to examine necessary witnesses for proving the expenditure incurred in long medical treatment. He further submitted that when the appellant made a statement on oath that when he was travelling by the said vehicle, the said vehicle turtled, it by itself was proving the negligence on the part of the driver. Apart from that, Shri Pawnekar submitted that it was for the driver of the said vehicle or owner of the said vehicle to examine the driver of the said vehicle for the purpose of proving that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of vehicles in question. In addition to it, he has submitted that the Insurance Co. should have obtained the permission from the Tribunal to contest the claim on behalf of the driver and owner of the said vehicle. But in the present case, the Insurance Company has also not done so. He submitted that there has been injustice to the appellant and· in the interest of justice atleast the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for retrial. Shri Dhupar, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that in the interest of justice the Insurance Company should be given an opportunity of contesting the claim on merit in view of the joint reply of respondents 1 and 2. Shri Dhupar in the alternative submitted that when the appellant did not examine necessary witnesses and closed the case; now he cannot submit that injustice has been caused to him. Keeping in view the benevolent spirit in which the Motor Vehicle Act has been passed, necessary provision in respect of compensation awardable to the victims of the accidents have been provided, the Tribunal has to take a considerate approach and to follow the attitude of giving maximum opportunity to the victims or the legal representatives of the victims to examine necessary witnesses. It is a matter of common experience that the victim who sustains major injuries in the accident requires a long treatment for the purpose of curing disability sustained in the accident. The trauma, disability and pain left behind after the accident lingers for sufficiently long time creating the trauma scar in the mind as well as to the purse of the victim. The Tribunal and the Court has to take a notice that majority of the citizens of India are generally poor and the literacy rate is not to the point of satisfaction. When such persons are approaching the Tribunal for the purpose of getting the compensation in the accident, normally the burden should not be put on their shoulders to bring witnesses. A notice has to be taken by the Tribunal that it is not possible for common villagers to procure the presence of doctor for giving the evidence for his case in the Court or before the Tribunal unless summoned by the Courts. When such claimant is unable to procure the presence of such medically concerned persons, he be given option to procure presence of such witnesses while utilising the process of summoning of such witnesses. The counsel for the appellant should have obtained the summons of the witnesses for the purpose of examining the medical doctors for the purpose of proving the expenditure incurred by him in long treatment. Unfortunately, that has not been done. The Courts are interested in doing justice and not only disposing of the matters and it should be done with real spirit. The joint say submitted by respondents 1 and 2 entitles the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3, to contest the claim on merit. It needs to be given sufficient opportunity in' that context. The Insurance Company may seek permission in writing from the Tribunal to contest the claim on merit if respondents 1 and 2 do not contest it on merit. Sufficient opportunity needs to be granted to respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company also because it is the custodian of public funds. In the interest of justice the award which has been passed by the Tribunal thus in the circumstances and the points mentioned above, stands set aside. The Tribunal to re-assess the evidence on record and record the findings afresh on all the issues.