JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th July 2010, passed in MVC No.2579/2009, by the XI Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-12), (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `8,59,000/- awarded in his favour as against his claim for `1,81,50,000/- is inadequate. 2. The appellant was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 4:00 P.M, on 19-09-2008, when the appellant was riding his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01/X-5795 on Hosur-Lasker Road from South to North near Baldwin College, a Eicher Canter vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01/B-3302, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the appellant from behind. Due to the impact, the appellant was thrown down to the road and the said Canter vehicle ran over the leg of the appellant and he sustained grievous injuries over his leg. Immediately, he was shifted to St.Philomena's Hospital, where he took treatment as an in-patient from 19-08-2008 to 29-08- 2008. 3. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `1,81,50,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20th July, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `8,59,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that he had specifically made out a case before the Tribunal, by placing documentary evidence, i.e. E-mail dated 17th May 2009, at Ex.P13 to the effect that due to the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he could not report to duty and sustained loss of future income as his services has been terminated. But, the Tribunal has erroneously negatived the said stand observing that the appellant has not produced any document to show that the injuries which he sustained will cause 100% disability and in future he will not get any job. The said finding given by Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Further, he is quick to point out and submit that inadvertently, the appellant could not produce some of the medical bills and also the bills in respect of travelling expenses. The same are produced as list of documents along with Misc.Cvl.19272/2010 filed under 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and the said documents are genuine in nature. He submitted that, he has to prove that, he is entitled to higher compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, loss of income during treatment period, future medical expenses, loss of future income including medical and travelling expenses and also that, he has lost the job on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh, permitting the appellant to file necessary application for production of list of documents including adducing oral evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate his claim for higher compensation. 5. In response to the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer fairly submitted that, the submission of the learned counsel for appellant may be placed on record and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be set aside and matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh and to decide the same in accordance with law. He further submitted that liberty may be reserved to the Insurer to file additional objections and also adduce additional oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their stand and all the grounds urged by both the parties be left open. 6. He further submitted that liberty may be reserved to the Insurer to file additional objections and also adduce additional oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their stand and all the grounds urged by both the parties be left open. 6. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, after evaluation of the original records available on file, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after microscopic evaluation of the documents produced along with Misc.Cvl.19272/2010, enclosing thereto list of documents, which is allowed by a separate order, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration, for the reason that the documentary evidence at Ex.P13, which is the E-mail dated 17th May 2009 has not been considered in a proper perspective. It is the specific case of the appellant that he has pleaded before the Tribunal as well as before this Court that, as per Ex.P13, he could not join to duty because of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and that the appellant has been laid off. Further, it can be seen that the appellant has produced list of documents, viz. the medical bills and travelling expenses, the genuinety of which is to be verified by the Insurer and proved by the claimant, by adducing additional oral and documentary evidence. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of appellant's case, it would suffice for this Court if appropriate direction is issued to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same, to meet the ends of justice. 8. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th July 2010, passed in MVC No.2579/2009, by the XI Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-12), is hereby set aside; The matter stands remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration and re- determination of compensation afresh and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. Parties are permitted to file necessary application/s, for adducing additional evidence, oral/documentary, to substantiate their respective cases within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; In case such application/s is/are filed by the learned counsel for the parties, within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, as above; Both the appellant and Insurer are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Tribunal on 25-11-2013 at 11:00 A.M., to enable them to take further dates of hearing; All the contentions urged by both the parties are left open; Registry is directed to return the entire original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith; Registry is also directed to return the entire additional documents produced along with the Misc.Cvl. to the counsel for appellant immediately, in case the learned counsel for appellant makes such application, to enable him to file the necessary application before the Tribunal; Office to draw award, accordingly.