ORDER Wangdi, J. This Appeal is directed against judgment dated 08-05-2013 in MACT Case No.6 of 2012 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, rejecting the Claim Petition filed by the Appellants for compensation against 50% permanent disability suffered by him due to a motor vehicle accident that took place on 04-01-2009. 2. The Appellant No.1 is a resident of Soreng Bazaar, West Sikkim aged about 45 years and a business man by profession earning monthly income of Rs.20,867/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred and sixty seven). On 04-01-2009 while travelling from Dentam to Soreng on board a taxi bearing registration No.SK-04/3404 he was severely injured when it met with an accident at Samdong about 7.5 kms. away from Kaluk P.S., West Sikkim. 3. The Appellant was first treated at Soreng, P.H.C. and then at Namchi District Hospital from where he was referred to the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Sushrutanagar, Darjeeling, West Bengal where he was treated from 05-01-2009 to 31-01-2009. It is stated that due to the accident the Appellant No.1 has suffered 50% disability and is unable to earn for the livelihood of his family and his own. He is also required to incur expenditure on the periodical medical treatments to be undergone by him and for the medicines to be taken by him regularly. Thus claim for Rs.21,10,611/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs ten thousand six hundred and eleven) was preferred by the Appellants against the disability. 4. The Claim petition was contested only by the Respondents No.2 and 3 who were Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 respectively in the original proceedings. The Respondent No.1 who was the Opposite Party No.3 chose not to appear and contest despite service of notice and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 04-09-2012. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- “………………………… O.P. No.3 absent and he is proceeded exparte as he has failed to appear despite of receipt of summons of the Court. …………………………” 5. It is relevant to note that nothing of substance is found in the written objections filed on behalf of the Respondents No.2 and 3 that can be considered as effective objections to the Claims set up by the Appellants in the Claim Petition except for the vague and general ones taken in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 which we may reproduce below:- “1. That, the Petition is not maintainable either in Law or on facts against the Opposite Party No. 1, under the facts and circumstances of the case and same is liable to be dismissed. 2. That, the claim Petition does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party No. 1, as such the same is liable to be rejected. 6. That, this Opposite Party submits that the amount of Compensation Claim is excessive, super fluous, abnormal, highly inflated and bought for illegal gain without any legal and equitable basis.” 6. There is no dispute as to the validity of the documents of the vehicle, the factum of the vehicle having met with the accident and the Appellant No.1 having got injured in that accident. Those have rather remained categorically admitted. The only plea of some substance taken by them is that the liability, if any, on account of the disability suffered by the Appellants, would lie with the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.3 with whom the vehicle was insured. 7. Based on the pleadings, five issues were framed by the Learned Claims Tribunal which are reproduced in verbatim below:- Issue No.1. 1. Whether the Claimant No.1 was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No: SK-04/3404 (Mahindra Commander) driven by the Opposite Party No.1, owned by Opposite Party No.2 and insured with Opposite Party No.3, meet with an accident on 04.01.2009 at Samdong, under Kaluk Police Station? Issue No.2. 2. Whether the Claimant No.1 became 50 % disable due to the said accident? Issue No.3. 3. Whether the monthly income of the Claimant No.1 prior to an accident was Rs:10,433/-(Rupees Ten Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty three) only, from his business? Issue No.4. 4. Whether the vehicle No: SK-04/3404 had valid and effective driving licence, other related documents and insurance policy at the time of accident? Issue No.5. 5. Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation as claimed by them? 8. Out of the above, issues No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the Claimants and the rest against. Based upon the findings on issues no.2 and 3, the Learned Claims Tribunal decided issue no.5 against the Claimants holding that the Claimants were not entitled to the compensation as claimed by them. 9. Mr. 8. Out of the above, issues No.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the Claimants and the rest against. Based upon the findings on issues no.2 and 3, the Learned Claims Tribunal decided issue no.5 against the Claimants holding that the Claimants were not entitled to the compensation as claimed by them. 9. Mr. Bhupendra Giri, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from the vice of perversity as the Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issues no.2, 3 and 5 has overlooked glaring evidence on the records in the form of the medical reports, medical certificates, various vouchers, etc. It is submitted that the Learned Claims Tribunal – (i) while deciding issue no.2 had fallen in error in rejecting the FIR, Exhibit 7, merely on the ground that it did not disclose the Soreng Police Case number and that the signature on Exhibit 7 did not tally with the signature of O/C of the Police Station or with that of the I.O. of the case; (ii) had overlooked the discharge certificate issued by the RMO at the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Sushrutanagar, Darjeeling, West Bengal (Part of Exhibit 9), while holding that the Appellants had not filed any document to support their contention that the victim had undergone medical treatment at at the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Sushrutanagar, Darjeeling, West Bengal; (iii) perversity was writ large in holding that there was no referral certificate in proof of the fact that the Appellant No.1 was referred by the concerned doctor of Soreng PHC or Namchi Hospital or the STNM Hospital or by the Board of STNM Hospital to undergo treatment in North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Siliguri, West Bengal on the face of medical report dated 04-01-2009, a part of Exhibit 9 (collectively) found at page 126 of the original Trial Court records; (iv) disability certificate, Exhibit 8, which is a primary evidence under the Evidence Act, was rejected on the erroneous ground that doctors issuing the certificate were not examined; and (v) had overlooked glaring documentary evidence, Exhibit 15 and the oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 while deciding issue no.3 regarding monthly income of the Appellant No.1 against the Appellants. 10. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company, Mr. Manish Kr. 10. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company, Mr. Manish Kr. Jain, Advocate, limited his arguments to the following questions only:- (i) The discharge certificate, a part of Exhibit 9 (collectively) of the Trial Court, was not proved in accordance with law and that the finding of the Learned Claims Tribunal that the certificate looked forged cannot be faulted; (ii) The disability certificate, a part of Exhibit 8 (collectively) of the original case records, was not reliable as neither was the basis upon which it was issued stated in the certificate nor was the doctor who actually treated him examined as a witness; (iii) The extent of loss of earning capacity of the Appellant No.1 on account of the disability was not ascertained. 11. Upon consideration of the records and the evidence as well as the oral submissions made by the Learned Counsel, I am inclined to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company that the evidence as regards the discharge certificate and the extent of loss of earning capacity as a consequence of the disability certificate are quite deficient. I also find that the findings on issues no.2, 3, and 5 in the impugned judgment suffers from the vice of perversity as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. Considering the nature of the proceedings as being one under a benevolent piece of legislation, duty was cast upon the Learned Claims Tribunal to have examined (i) the doctor who examined the victim/Appellant No.1 on 04-01-2009 and had referred him to higher centre for expert management, (ii) at least one of the Members of the Medical Board issuing the disability certificate, Exhibit 8 and (iii) the authority who issued the discharge certificate dated 31-01-2009 which is a part of Exhibit 9 (colly) at page 124 of the original case records, in order to ascertain the veracity and impart of those documents. This unfortunately was not done. 12. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another : (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the following guidelines have been issued in circumstances as the present one:- “16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. 12. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another : (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the following guidelines have been issued in circumstances as the present one:- “16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim” for determining the “just compensation”. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the “just compensation”. ............................. ............................................................ 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” [underlining mine] 13. Following from the above, the imperativeness of adducing further evidence in this case cannot be over emphasised. It is also not permissible for a Tribunal to rush through a case by glossing over or by brushing aside glaring evidence in gross disregard to its solemn responsibility of dispensation of justice. I am convinced that there has been a travesty of justice in this case. 14. It is also not permissible for a Tribunal to rush through a case by glossing over or by brushing aside glaring evidence in gross disregard to its solemn responsibility of dispensation of justice. I am convinced that there has been a travesty of justice in this case. 14. In my view, this is a fit case which requires remand for reconsideration and, it is accordingly directed so with the following directions:- (i) The doctor who initially treated the victim/ Appellant No.1 at the Namchi District Hospital on 04-01-2009 and/or any one of the doctors who issued the disability certificate, Exhibit 8, be examined to prove those documents; (ii) The Authority issuing the discharge certificate dated 31-01-2009 (part of Exhibit 9) at page 124 of the original case records also be examined to set at rest any doubt expressed by the Learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment; (iii) Consider the case de novo and render judgment afresh by also taking into consideration the additional evidence as indicated above; and (iv) The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of this Order and not later than that. 15. For the reasons above, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. 16. No order as to costs. 17. Let a copy of this Order and the Original records be transmitted forthwith to the Learned Claims Tribunal for its due compliance.