ORDER : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.07.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Una, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2012, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred present appeal under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short); 2. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, no one appears for any of the respondents. Record and proceedings have been called for and therefore, the appeal is taken up for its final hearing. 3. On perusal of the record and proceedings of learned Tribunal, following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:— That, on 02.05.1997, deceased Manu Lumbha Gohel, who happens to be son of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was going on the road near power house of village Bhacha, Taluka Una, at that time, respondent No. 1, who was driving an Ambassador Car bearing its Registration No.GJ-03-T-8836, in excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner, collided with the deceased and because of that, deceased sustained injuries on the eyes, beard, chicks, ears, head and sore injuries on the whole mouth. Pursuant to the same, a complaint came to be registered, which is brought on record at Exh:43. The Panchnama was also made, which was exhibited at Exh:44. Record further indicates that, when the accident occurred, deceased was 25 years old and he died on 04.08.1997 at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Respondent No. 5 has been deleted as she has expired. The claimants adduced their evidence in form of Examination-in-Chief at Exh:39 and documentary evidence such as Copy of FIR at Exh:43, Copy of Spot Panchnama at Exh:44, Copy of Driving License of Driver - respondent No. 1 at Exh:45, Copy of R.C Book of the vehicle at Exh:46 and Copy of Insurance Policy at Exh:47. The Insurance Company also brought on record a copy of the original Insurance Policy at Exh:48. Learned Tribunal framed total 3 issues at Exh:33 and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced on record, came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500/- per month and after deduction 1/3rd of the same, applying 18 multiply, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. Learned Tribunal framed total 3 issues at Exh:33 and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced on record, came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500/- per month and after deduction 1/3rd of the same, applying 18 multiply, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and loss of future income and further awarded Rs. 38,000/- towards conventional heads and funeral expenses, thereby, total aggregating to Rs. 1,82,000/- alongwith 9% percent interest from the date of application till the date of its realization. The said judgment & award is impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance Company appeared through its advocate and filed its detailed written statement at Exh:22, wherein it was contended that, the deceased died because of the reason that he was suffering from cancer and learned Tribunal has not even considered the same and has not even referred the same. It was further contended that even though the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded that the deceased expired in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, it has not even referred and considered the letter issued by the learned Director, Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute, at Exh:22 and only relying upon the documentary evidence that were produced by the claimants, learned Tribunal has wrongly came to the conclusion that, the deceased died because of accident and that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,82,000/- Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award suffers from non-application of mind and hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 5. Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record and proceedings of learned Tribunal, it is quite evident that, the appellant - Insurance Company appeared through its advocate. Further, the claim petition which was preferred by the original claimants before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the jurisdiction was at Junagadh on 04.09.1997 Record further indicates that vide order dated 06.08.2002 below Exh:6, learned Tribunal, Junagadh, was pleased to pass an order under Section 140 of the Act, whereby it awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, the claim petition which was preferred by the original claimants before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the jurisdiction was at Junagadh on 04.09.1997 Record further indicates that vide order dated 06.08.2002 below Exh:6, learned Tribunal, Junagadh, was pleased to pass an order under Section 140 of the Act, whereby it awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Record further indicates that, on 19.06.1998, the Insurance Company filed its written statements and objections against the application preferred under Section 140 of the Act at Exh:15. The summons came to be issued by learned Tribunal to the Administrator of Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute and by application dated 21.09.1998 at Exh:19, the Hospital Administrative also informed the learned Tribunal that as on 22.09.1998, the doctor is not in a position to attend the hearing. Record further indicates that by further communication dated 09.05.2001, Additional Registrar of learned Tribunal at Verawal, asked the Administrator of the Hospital to is sue a certificate and accordingly, certificate dated 01.06.2001 came to be issued by Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute signed by its Hon'ble Director, which is at Exh:22. Record also indicates that the claimant filed no fault application and the Insurance Company also filed its reply. The deceased filed Cross-Examination-in-Chief at Exh:39 and the said witness was also cross-examined by learned advocate of the Insurance Company at Exh:52. 6. Considering the aforesaid evidence and on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that Exh:15 is the written statement as well as the reply to the application under Section 140 of the Act, which is not even referred to by learned Tribunal. From the impugned judgment and award, it clearly transpires that the learned Tribunal has not even referred to the certificate issued by Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute at Exh:22. It further appears that none of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant in its written arguments at Exh:52 are considered by learned Tribunal, as such can be safely said that the learned Tribunal has not even examined such vital fact. On the contrary, it is found that the learned Tribunal has recorded that no written statement is filed, which is factually incorrect. This Court finds that having referred to the Oral Testimony of the claimants at Exh:34 as well as Cross-Examination document at Exh:22 is not even referred or discussed by learned Tribunal. On the contrary, it is found that the learned Tribunal has recorded that no written statement is filed, which is factually incorrect. This Court finds that having referred to the Oral Testimony of the claimants at Exh:34 as well as Cross-Examination document at Exh:22 is not even referred or discussed by learned Tribunal. Considering the fact that the accident occurred on 02.05.1997 and also the fact that the deceased was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and more particularly, the certificate at Exh:22, wherein it is mentioned that it was proved case of brain stem tumor and upon re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, which are already on record, it clearly transpires that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering such vital fact and therefore, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings of M.A.C.P No. 91 of 2012 deserves to be remanded back to learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, for its rehearing on the same set of evidence. 7. For the foregoing, present First Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 21.07.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Proceedings of M.A.C.P No. 91 of 2012 are hereby restored to the file of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, for its re-hearing. Learned Tribunal is requested to hear the Claim Petition afresh after issuing notice to all concerned and endeavour to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount which is deposited by the Insurance Company and which is already invested in F.D.R as per the order passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.P Dholaria) in Civil Application No. 4858 of 2017 shall be kept in F.D.R as it is, till disposal of the claim petition. No costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.