1. Heard Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. F.A. Khalid, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At the outset Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Claim Case No.15 of 2000 in which the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur made the award dated 10th November, 2000 is required to be set aside and remitted back the Claim Case No.15 of 2000 inasmuch as the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur had committed irregularities in making the impugned award by taking recourse to different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also on the ground that no doctor had been examined for coming to the findings about the permanent total disablement of the applicant of the Claim Case No.15 of 2000. 3. In order to substantiate the case of the applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 3.8.2005 passed in M.A.(F) No.9 of 2000. For easy reference, the copy of the judgment and order of this court dated 3.8.2005 passed in M.A.(F) No.9 of 2000 is placed on record and marked 'X' for identification. The relevant portion of the earlier judgment and order of this court dated 3.8.2005 passed in M.A(F) No.9 of 2000 reads as follows: “10 From the above discussions, we answer the two substantial questions of law sated above as follows: The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in calculating the claim of the workmen arising out or in the course of his employment in a motor accident under an application for such claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act could read into the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But the amount of compensation for the workmen should be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. We are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation had committed illegality in calculating the amount of compensation by resorting to the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in the impugned judgment and order dated 6.7.2000. That being so, we are of the opinion that interference to the impugned judgment and award dated 6.7.2000 is called for. Accordingly the impugned judgment and award dated 6.7.2000 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. That being so, we are of the opinion that interference to the impugned judgment and award dated 6.7.2000 is called for. Accordingly the impugned judgment and award dated 6.7.2000 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. In view of the above decision, out of the total amount deposited by the appellant, i.e. the National Insurance Company, the remaining amount still with the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation may be released to the appellant. The Claim Case No.30 of 1999 is remitted back to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to calculate the amount of claim in the manner indicated above by limiting to the liability under the workmen's Compensation Act. As the present claim case is for a motor accident as early as 20.3.1999, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has to dispose of the case as early as possible not later than 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 19.8.2005.” 4. Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) passed in M.A.C No.1(K) of 2000 reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393. This court (Division Bench) in National Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra) held that non-examination of a doctor by the claimant shall result in denying opportunity to the Insurer to cross-examine the doctor who issued the certificate certifying that the claimant was suffering from permanent disablement and as such this court was of the view that the case was required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for enabling the Insurer to cross-examine the concerned doctor who issued the certificate about the permanent disablement of the claimant. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted in the present case that even the doctor who issued the certificate to the effect that the claimant was suffering from permanent disablement was not examined and also that an opportunity was not given to the Insurer to cross-examine the doctor who issued the medial certificate for the claimant of the Claim Case No.15 of 2000. 5. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant this court is of the considered view that an interference to the impugned award dated 10.11.2000 passed in Claim Case No.15 of 2000 is required. 5. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant this court is of the considered view that an interference to the impugned award dated 10.11.2000 passed in Claim Case No.15 of 2000 is required. Accordingly the judgment and award dated 10.11.2000 passed in Claim Case No.15 of 2000 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. 6. In view of allowing the Appeal, the entire amount which has already been deposited by the appellant and distributed to the claimants shall subject to the result of the final award of the Claim Case No.15 of 2000. 7. The Claim Case NO.15 of 2000 is remitted back to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur to dispose of the Claim Case No.15 of 2000 according to law by giving ample opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Manipur on 6.11.2006.