JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, granted by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi vide judgment dated 27th August, 2011 in Compensation Case No. 74/2000 whereby, the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-along with interest 6% p.a. from the date of closure of the evidence of the appellant. 3. The claimant, the appellant herein, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 24.4.1999. On the fateful day, the claimant was travelling in scooter from Ranchi to Sugnu village and when he reached near Bariatu, a Trekker bearing Registration No. BR 14P 1822, being driven in rash and negligent manner came from Booty side knocked him down. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and was moved to the hospital and was treated. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, the injured was 51 years of age and was serving in MES, Dipatoli Pump House and was getting a salary of Rs.5,500/-per month. It has further been pleaded that the multiple injuries resulted in fracture of radius and ulna bones. He also sustained head injuries and injury in eyes and has lost the vision of his right eye. It is also pleaded that the appellant has suffered permanent disability due to loss of vision of his right eye and fracture of his bones. Thus, he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest. 4. The owner of the vehicle appeared and contested the case. He admitted that the vehicle was fully insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and the policy was valid and effective from 29.12.1998 to 28.12.1999. It is pleaded that all the ancillary papers and permit of the vehicle was valid and was in order. It is also pleaded that the driver had valid licence to drive the vehicle. It is further pleaded that since the vehicle was insured, it is the Insurance Company, which has to indemnify the owner, and is liable to pay the compensation. 5. It is also pleaded that the driver had valid licence to drive the vehicle. It is further pleaded that since the vehicle was insured, it is the Insurance Company, which has to indemnify the owner, and is liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Insurance Company appeared and took the ornamental plea of non-joinder of the parties like the driver of the offending vehicle and the owners and driver of the scooter was not paid party. He submits that later on, the investigator found that the claimant was performing his duty in MES at Dipatoli Pump House and it cannot be said that the claimant became disable. The fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident, is admitted. However, the Insurance Company had taken a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and proper licence. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. The claimant examined three witnesses and he proved the copy of the FIR and the Chargesheet. 7. Opp. Party No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company though had not adduced any oral evidence but exhibited the driving licence verification report, Investigation report, photocopy of the DTO report, photocopy of the insurance policy, Photograph of the injured and the photocopy of the driving licence. The owner of the vehicle did not produce any evidence. 8. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi after considering the evidences laid by the parties has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trekker bearing registration No. BR 14P 1822. The tribunal also held that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. under the valid insurance policy during the time of accident. The court below held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle and the scooter were not having any valid driving licence. The court below also held that there is no evidence on record to suggest that any condition of the policy of the Insurance Company has been violated. The Tribunal, thus, held that it is the Insurance Company which has to indemnify the owner. On the quantum, the Tribunal also held that the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.5,500/-per month but there is no disability certificate showing the percentage of disability. The Tribunal, thus, held that it is the Insurance Company which has to indemnify the owner. On the quantum, the Tribunal also held that the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.5,500/-per month but there is no disability certificate showing the percentage of disability. The Tribunal also held that some documents were filed but not proved. The Tribunal held that no medical bills and other bills in respect of other expenses, discharge summary or injury report have been proved by the claimant. The court below thus, awarded compensation to the tune @ Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of closure of the evidence. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. 10. The counsel for the claimant states that the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in arriving at the said conclusion. He submits that there were several documents which were on record and the same should have been considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that the documents which were on record clearly show the amount spent by the claimant on account of hospitalization and on medication. The counsel for the appellant submits that the court below was the duty bound to consider the documents even though the same was/were not exhibited. 11. The learned lawyer for the Insurance Company submits that the appellant-claimant has failed to prove the amounts spent towards his treatment or to show the nature of injury and thus the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation amount to be Rs.25,000/-. He further submits that none of the documents which the claimant is relying upon has been exhibited and thus, the court below has rightly concluded and awarded the compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest. 12. After hearing the parties and after going through the record as well as the evidences of the witnesses, I find that the court below has held that though the claimant has claimed that he has become disable but the disability certificate has not been filed and the Tribunal found that in this case no medical bills or other expenses, discharge summary and the injury report have been proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act so the same cannot be considered for determination of compensation. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In this case, the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place and the insurance policy was valid. The only dispute was in respect of quantum of compensation which has been assessed. I find that only because of non-exhibiting of documents, the aforesaid order was passed. 13. When I go through the evidences laid on behalf of the claimant, I find that Balram Mahto is the claimant's witness No. 1, who is the son-in-law of the claimant. He deposed in paragraph 3 that the claimant was treated in Sai Hospital Bariatu and for his eye, he was treated by Dr. B.K. Verma, Dr. B.P. Kashyap and also at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai. He states that he went by train to Shankar Netralaya, Chennai. He further deposed that during his treatment, it was detected that there is no vision in his right eye. In paragraph 7, he has categorically stated that he identifies the documents with regard to treatment of the claimant and the same can be exhibited. These documents are on record. He further stated that the train tickets and other documents were also filed but the same could not be exhibited. P.W.2, Dhaneshwar Mahto, in paragraphs 6 and 7 identifying the FIR and Chargesheet stated that the same can also be exhibited. P.W.3 Rameshwar Mahto in paragraph 7 stated that he deposited papers in respect of his treatment the same can be exhibited. He further deposed that some of the documents have been misplaced by him. Thus from the aforesaid evidences, it is crystal clear that these witnesses have stated that the documents were filed and the same can be exhibited. 14. When I go through the lower court records, I find that there are several documents have been filed in support of the treatment of the claimant but none of the documents have been exhibited though the witnesses have stated that the same could be exhibited. It is surprising that similar was the statement in respect of the FIR and the Chargesheet, but the FIR and chargesheet were exhibited by the court below whereas, the documents in support of treatment of the claimant as well as injury have not been exhibited. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment the case of Vimla Devi and Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186 has held as under: “24. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment the case of Vimla Devi and Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186 has held as under: “24. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, it also deals with payment of compensation. Section 168 of the Act deals with Award of the Claims Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. As has been held by the Court (three-Judge Bench), the Claim Petition filed under the Act is neither a Suit or an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself. [see United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors., 2011 (2) TN MAC 481 (SC) : 2011 (10) SCC 509 ]” In view of the aforesaid principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that reasonable compensation should have been awarded in accordance with law for seven reasons mentioned therein. The Seventh reason is quoted here-in-below: “33. Seventh, if the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the Appellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in such event, the Appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the Compensation on such ground. In our opinion, it was nothing but a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the Claim Petition. It was more so when the Appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their case and the Respondents did nothing to counter them.” 16. While going through the evidences as well as record of this case, I find the fact of the case, in hand, falls within the four corner of the seventh reasoning, given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimla Devi and Others (Supra). In the case in hand, as held earlier, I find that, there are several documents on record, which show the nature of treatment, which the claimant underwent and the injury. P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly refer to all those documents in their examination-in-Chief and they state that the same could be exhibited but surprisingly the court did not mark the same as Exhibit. Due to procedural lapses, the claimant cannot be deprived of a reasonable compensation. P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly refer to all those documents in their examination-in-Chief and they state that the same could be exhibited but surprisingly the court did not mark the same as Exhibit. Due to procedural lapses, the claimant cannot be deprived of a reasonable compensation. When the documents were on record and the witnesses have stated that the same can be marked as Exhibit, it was the duty of the court to mark the same and thereafter assess just and reasonable compensation. 17. Further I find that on what consideration the Tribunal has reached at a conclusion that reasonable compensation would be Rs.25,000/-, has also not been mentioned. What was the basis while arriving at the conclusion is missing in awarding the compensation. Thus, this Court has no other alternative than to set aside the impugned Award and remit the matter to the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi to decide the case afresh on the question of quantum of compensation in accordance with law and taking into consideration the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimla Devi (supra). 18. Thus, the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Clams Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.74/2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Motor Vehicles Accident Clams Tribunal, Ranchi to decide the question of quantum afresh in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with lower court records. 19. Office is directed to send the Lower Court Record along with a copy of this order to the Motor Vehicles Accident Clams Tribunal, Ranchi by special messenger. Since both the parties are present before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. 20. This appeal stands allowed.