ORDER (Oral) 1. This order shall govern disposal of M.A. No. 2441/04 and M.A. No. 2442/04 by which the claim petitions bearing No. 343/03 and 342/ 03 filed by the claimants have been dismissed. 2. It was the case of the claimants that on 6.6.2003 Subhash was driving motorcycle (Boxer) bearing registrati9n No. MP-09/JT-7805 alongwith his wife Shivkanya and daughter and going from Sudama Nagar to Footy Kothi Road, Indore. At about 12:30 p.m., nearby Sonal General Store, Sudama Nagar, when he reached on the four ways one tanker bearing No. MPH-7362 has come from the left side and, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2, dashed the motorcycle, whereby the front wheel of the motorcycle was totally damaged. The FIR was lodged by the appellant in this regard in Police Station Annapurna, Indore, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the tanker and the driver. 3. Shri Chouhan submits that the Tribunal has found proved the accident, but it was due to the negligence of the motorcyclist, therefore, claimant Subhash as well as pillion rider (Pooja, who has filed another claim petition) are not entitled for any compensation. Shri Chouhan further suomits that the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal on the point of negligence is unsustainable, because as per the contents of the FIR as well as the statements of the claimants Subhash and Shivkanya, who was the eye witness, it is fully established that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the tanker. Even then, merely on relying on the statement of the driver of the tanker, who was accused in criminal case, his negligence was not found proved. He has further argued that once the statements of the claimants are supported by contents of the FIR and an eye witness Shivkanya, it cannot be discarded merely on the oral testimony of the driver of the tanker. Therefore, the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. He has further argued that once the statements of the claimants are supported by contents of the FIR and an eye witness Shivkanya, it cannot be discarded merely on the oral testimony of the driver of the tanker. Therefore, the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In alternative, he further argues that assuming the worst situation if there was a head on collision between the tanker as well as the motorcycle, even then it may be a case of contributory negligence of both and the composite negligence of the driver of motorcycle may be held in a claim case, but in a!1other case of pillion rider, the said principle be not applicable to deny the compensation. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is palpably wrong and liable to be set aside. In the case of Pooja he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with the Certificate of permanent disablement. On the basis of those documents it is argued by him that on account of the accident that took place with the said tanker, Pooja received permanent disablement, therefore, compensation ought to have been awarded, looking to the injuries received by her. 4. On the other hand, Shri Anand Agrawal, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has argued with vehemence that the finding of the Claims Tribunal, which is based on due consideration of the statement of the driver of the tanker, cannot be ignored and interference on the finding of fact is not permissible. He has further argued that the statement of the driver of the vehicle against whom plea of negligence was taken was not found proved. In such case the finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. In alternative, he submits that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and the documents which have been produced before this Court cannot be relied upon at this stage without giving an opportunity of rebuttal to other side. Therefore, he argued that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. Shri VP. In alternative, he submits that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and the documents which have been produced before this Court cannot be relied upon at this stage without giving an opportunity of rebuttal to other side. Therefore, he argued that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. Shri VP. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has also argued that the finding of the Tribunal is based on the statements of driver of the tanker, Ratanlal NA 2 and the cleaner Rajendra, who have unequivocally stated that the accident took place as per the negligence of the motorcyclist. Therefore, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and the findings recorded therein cannot be allowed to be disturbed at this stage. On the point of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, it is argued that no such document has been produced before the trial Court, therefore, those documents cannot be relied upon. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is not in dispute that for an accident of 6.6.2002 an FIR was got lodged by Subhash on 7.6.2002, after a day. But, in the FIR there has been specifically averred that it was the driver of the tanker who was coming from left side on four way and dashed the motorcycle. The said contents of the FIR are supported by the statements of Subhash as well as Shivkanya. On the other hand the statement of driver of the tanker as well as the cleaner have been recorded wherein they have said that the accident took place by the negligence of the driver of the It ctorcycle. It appears that it is a case of headon collision; however, the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal to disprove the negligence 0 the tanker driver cannot be accepted, particularly when there is an FIR and the statements in support of the contents of the FIR are available on record. Therefore, the finding of not proving the negligence of tanker driver as recorded by the Tribunal and the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the finding of not proving the negligence of tanker driver as recorded by the Tribunal and the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle is liable to be set aside. Now, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to examine the fact that whether it is a case of contributory negligence 0 the tanker driver and on this point separate finding is required to be recorded by the Claims Tribunal afresh. Simultaneously, it is to be seen that the Permanent Disablement Certificate which is produced before this Court alongwith the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is required to be proved by the claimant or disproved by the other side, because the said document was not produced before the Tribunal. Although the girl has been produced before this Court, but I am not recording any opinion after visualzing her and it is left open to both the side to adduce evidence on the point. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal dated 22.4.2004, rejecting the claim petitions is without due consideration of the evidence and the findings are perverse, hence set aside, but the matter is remitted back for deciding the issues mentioned herein above and to record a fresh finding on the point of contributory negligence as well as on the point that the girl Pooja is having permanent disablement or not. Prior to recording such finding afresh the Tribunal is at liberty to give opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence on the issue and to pass a fresh award. 8. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned award the matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal, it is directed to pass a fresh award in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The parties are agree to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 15.10.2008. The record of the Claims Tribunal be transmitted with a view to enable the Tribunal to proceed further in the matter, along with the document which is filed by the appellant in M.A. No. 2442/04 by way of additional evidence.