Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 20-07-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bageshwar (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC. NO.01/2006 Lalit Puri @ Lal Puri Vs. Nandi Bhandari & another, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation against the appellant-the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within one month from the date of award. In default of payment, the claimant would be entitled for interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs alleging therein that on 20-092005 at about 8: 15 p.m. when he was sitting outside the Medical Store of District Hospital, Bageshwar, an offending Bus bearing No. UA 04B/3511 driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed him. The front wheel of the offending vehicle crushed his right leg. It was further alleged that he spent a lot of money for his medical treatment. Thus, the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. Smt. Nandi Bhandari, who was the owner of the vehicle, had filed her written statement alleging therein that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but it occurred due to mechanical fault. It was further alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence and documents at the time of accident. The owner pleaded that as the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be that of Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had filed its written statement denying the fact that the documents of the offending vehicle were valid at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was being driven against the policy conditions. 4. The Insurance Company had filed its written statement denying the fact that the documents of the offending vehicle were valid at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was being driven against the policy conditions. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle due to which the claimant sustained injuries on his person. It was further held that the offending vehicle was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and its documents were also valid at the time of accident. It was further held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal had held that the injured became 45% disabled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal considered the age of the injured as 40 years. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 2500/- per month or Rs. 30,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "16" and the amount of compensation was assessed Rs. 4,80,000/-. Apart from this, Rs. 20,000/- was also awarded for different heads. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimant-injured as compensation. The appellant was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant within one month from the date of award. In default of payment of the compensation within the stipulated time, the claimant would also be entitled for interest thereon @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation on the higher side. It was contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in' relying upon the photocopy of the disability certificate which had not been proved by the doctor before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the photocopy itseJf is not sufficient to prove the disability of the claimant. It was contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in' relying upon the photocopy of the disability certificate which had not been proved by the doctor before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the photocopy itseJf is not sufficient to prove the disability of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Kashmir Singh Vs. Santosh Singh Patiner and another reported in 2006 (2) U.D., 693. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent claimant had supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 8. The claimant-Lalit Puri had adduced the evidence of himself as PW-1 and he had supported the claim petition. It is true that no doctor had been examined before the learned Tribunal to prove the contents of disability certificate. It is also true that original of the said disability certificate had not been filed by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. 9. It is well settled position of law that mere filing of the photocopy of the original document is not sufficient to prove the contents of the document. The claimant should have filed the original disability certificate before the learned Tribunal. He should have called the doctor before the learned Tribunal so that his statement could have been recorded and the veracity of the contents of the document made in the said document could be proved. This Court had already discussed this aspect in detail in Kashmir Singh (Supra) by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal Reddy 2005 (12) SCC 189. The learned Tribunal had already awarded the compensation to the claimant on the ground of disability. If this Court proceeds to examine the doctor and direct the claimant to produce the original disability certificate and if any order .is passed against the parties to the claim petition after appreciation of such evidence, the parties would be deprived of their right of first appeal against the said finding. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this caSI3, it would be just and proper to set aside the award dated 20-07-2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District Judge, Bageshwar in MAC. NO.01/2006 & direct the claimant to file the original disability certificate before the Tribunal and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for the hearing of the case. NO.01/2006 & direct the claimant to file the original disability certificate before the Tribunal and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for the hearing of the case. The Tribunal will provide the opportunity to the claimant to adduce the evidence in support of his claim based on the disability of the claimant. It would also be just and appropriate to further direct the Tribunal to provide the opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence before the Tribunal in support of their pleadings. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the award dated 20-07 -2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bageshwar in MAC. No.01/2006, Lalit Puri @ Lal Puri Vs. Nandi Bhandari & another is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to dispose of the claim petition in the light of the observation made above expeditiously, prl3ferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant before the M.A.C.T. concerned shall be adjusted at the time of final disposal of the claim petition. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited as mandatory deposit, in favour of the appellant Insurance Company immediately. 12. No order as to costs.