1. This appeal impugns an order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Kargil, in short MACT�, on 31.10.2002 whereunder while disposing of the appellant™s claim petition against respondent, the Presiding Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest in his favour and not the amount claimed. 2. It appears that claiming to have been injured in a vehicular accident caused by rash driving of respondent No.3 while coming from Munje towards Kargil on motor cycle and hit by vehicle driven by aforesaid respondent resulting in grievous injuries to him and his consequent hospitalization, the claimant through a petition before the MACT, sought a total compensation of Rs.4.70 lacs from respondents. In their reply the respondents pleaded that the accident in fact was caused by rash driving of petitioner himself who was riding a motor bike and collided with the vehicle driven by respondent No.3. They have also maintained that at the worst the accident could be a result of contributory negligence of both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. Vide order dated 25.08.2001, the Tribunal framed issues as follows: 1. Whether accident involving injuries to the petitioner occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? ¦OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved affirmatively, what compensation petitioner is entitled to? ¦OPP. Issue No. 1 pertaining to alleged negligence of respondent No.3 while driving the offending vehicle, and issue No.2 to the quantum of compensation payable; and after parties adduced their respective evidence decided the claim as aforesaid. 3. Feeling aggrieved by reduction of his claim as done under impugned order the appellant assails the same on the ground that the Tribunal while considering the matter did not appreciate the petitioner™s evidence on record and failed to give appropriate reasons for its conclusions based on a finding of the Military Court; on which the reliance as placed by MACT is totally erroneous in law. During course of arguments the appellant™s counsel has reiterated the contents of the appeal while the respondent counsel is not available to be heard. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Even a cursory look at the impugned judgment reveals that the concerned MACT has not even cursorily discussed the evidence on record issue-wise, which reduces the conclusions arrived at support-less, rendering disposal of the matter, the way it has been done, devoid of substance. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Even a cursory look at the impugned judgment reveals that the concerned MACT has not even cursorily discussed the evidence on record issue-wise, which reduces the conclusions arrived at support-less, rendering disposal of the matter, the way it has been done, devoid of substance. On the contrary the learned Presiding Officer appears to have squarely relied upon the finding of Army Court that the petitioner and respondent No.3 were equally responsible for the accident which appears to be wrong for the simple reason that the learned Presiding Officer should have tried to arrive at his own conclusion in view of the evidence on his record, and not borrowed a finding from some where else, where the petitioner had no chance to present his case, even though the same could perhaps be used as a collateral material. This approach appears to run counter to the spirit behind the welfare legislation providing for compensation to the victims of vehicular accident that the relevant provision is. I feel that the concerned Presiding Officer would have acted more dutifully had he decided the matter on its own merit and in accordance with the evidence on record rather relying upon the out come of proceeding those was conducted in an entirely different context and for a different purposes all together; i.e. the assessment of 3rd respondents™ culpability which, being a criminal proceeding had a different texture and the standard of proof required therein was far more higher that the one required in the Civil matters, particularly the claim petitions. 5. The conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned judgment suffers from non appreciation of evidence and sole reliance upon materials which could not clinch the matter independent of evidence on record. These substantial irregularities cumulative constitute an error in law, and, accordingly, the impugned award is over set, and the matter remanded back for fresh consideration/necessary orders on basis of the whole evidence on record, of course, after assuring presence of other side before the MACT. Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the concerned MACT on 12th of Sept. 2005. Registry shall transmit the record of the case to the concerned MACT well before the appointed date. No order as to costs.