Judgement J.C.S. Rawat J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 21-03-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC. No. 31/2004, Smt. Anusuya Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment against the opposite parties/appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. and Sri Vikram Singh owner of the vehicle jointly and severally. The appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within one month for the date of award. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 8,23,600/- alleging therein that on 04-03-2004 the claimant injured was going in Vehicle No. U.P. 08/6070. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Vehicle, the Vehicle fell into gorge causing grievous injuries on the person of the claimant-injured. It was alleged that the backbone of the injured fractured on account of the injuries sustained by her and the injured was admitted in the hospital and she had spent a lot of money for' her medical treatment. It was alleged that due to the injuries, she was not able to do her routine work. It was further alleged that the claimant-injured was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. from agriculture and animal husbandry. Thus, the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. The insurance Company contested the claim petition and filed its written statements. The Insurance Company in its written statement denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The respondent No.2, Vikram Singh owner of the vehicle did not file any written statement and did not contest the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant-injured Smt. Anusuiya sustained the injuries in the accident on 04-03-2004. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant-injured Smt. Anusuiya sustained the injuries in the accident on 04-03-2004. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Vehicle. The injured became 100% disabled on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company was given liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle, in case, the Insurance Company has any doubt about the validity of the documents of the vehicle. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 4,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 and the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 7,20,000/-. Apart from this, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/ - towards medical expenses (including future medical expenses). Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/- 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 alongwith interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 6. Felling aggrieved by this, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 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 disability certificate filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the disability certificate reveals that the clamant was 100% disable but she appeared before the Tribunal and she had made her statement before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Kashmir Sigh Vs. Santosh Singh Patiner and another reported in 2006 (2) U.D., 693. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant had supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 9. The claimant Smt. Anusuiya had adduced the evidence of herself as PW-1 and she had supported the claim petition. Santosh Singh Patiner and another reported in 2006 (2) U.D., 693. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant had supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 9. The claimant Smt. Anusuiya had adduced the evidence of herself as PW-1 and she had supported the claim petition. It is true that no doctor had been examined before the Tribunal to prove the contents of disability certificate. The Tribunal had nowhere observed at the time of recording of the evidence that the claimant had been brought before the Tribunal with the help of other persons or she had come before the Tribunal on her own. 10. It is well settled position of law that mere filing of the document is not sufficient to prove the contents of the document. The claimant should have called the doctor before the Tribunal so that his statement could have been recorded and the veracity of the contents of the document could be tested. 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 AP. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal Reddy 2005 (12) SCC 189. The claim Petition had been decided by the Tribunal on 21-03-2006 prior to the delivery of the judgment in Kashmir Singh (Supra). 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 examine the doctor who had issued the disability certificate an 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper to set aside the award dated 21-03-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in MAC. No. 31/2004 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 her disability. 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. 12. The Tribunal will provide the opportunity to the claimant to adduce the evidence in support of her disability. 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. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the award dated 21-03-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal MAC. No. 31/2004, 8mt. Anusuiya Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and 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, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant before the MAC.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. 13. No order as to costs.