JUDGMENT : M.F.A. No.2489/2014 is filed by the KSRTC while M.F.A. No.3093/2014 is filed by the claimant. Both the appeals are filed for assailing the judgment and award passed in MVC No.309/2012 dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACTX, Tumkur (herein after referred to as the ‘Tribun al’ for the sake of brevity). 2. At this stage it may be stated that the KSRTC has assailed the judgment and award on the question of liability as well as on the quantum awarded by the Tribunal and the claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the tribunal. 4. The claimant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) seeking compensation on account of the injury caused in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.08.2011. 5. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on the fateful date of the accident that occurred on 24.08.2011 the petitioner was going on his two wheeler bearing registration No. KA 06 EE 4195 at 1.30 p.m. when he reached Lakkappa junction situated on NH 206 at Tumkur and waiting for the signal at the junction a bus bearing registration No.KA 40 F 553 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorbike. As a result of which the petitioner sustained the injuries. He was taken to hospital for medical treatment. He had to undergo surgery. Due to the injuries caused in the accident he is put to financial loss. 6. On service of summons the respondent KSRTC filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and specifically contended that on 24.08.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. the bus in question had stopped at the signal of Lakkappa circle, the moment the green signal was on, the motorbike bearing No.KA 06 EE 4195 driven by the petitioner came from left side and tried to over take the bus from the left side, in that process the petitioner dashed at the rear left wheel of the bus in question. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. The petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties, for the aforesaid reasons, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the claimant proves that on 24.08.2011 at about 1.30 pm at Lakappa Circle, Traffic Signal, on NH206 road, Tumkur Town, he met with accident due to wrongly use of KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA40/F553 by its driver, thereby he sustained injuries? 2. To what compensation the claimant is entitled to? And from whom? 3. What Order? 8. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,01,800/along with interest at 6% p.a. 9. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal the KSRTC and the claimant have preferred the appeals. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and records. 11. In the present case the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,12,800/towards loss of future earnings as the victim has lost his right hand thumb. The KSRTC has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded under this head on the ground that the same is exorbitant and disproportionate. According to the learned counsel for the appellant KSRTC there was no loss of income whatsoever due to the disability said to have been caused. In order to prove the said contention the learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.1/2016 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce the documents as additional evidence. The documents which are intended to be produced as additional evidence are the Income Tax returns for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The counsel has further submitted that the documents produced as additional evidence before this Court clearly goes to prove the defence taken by the appellant, that income of the injured victim was not reduced after the accident. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in MFA No.2489/2014 who is the claimant in MFA No.3093/2014 submits that he has not filed the objections to the said IA 1/2016. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in MFA No.2489/2014 who is the claimant in MFA No.3093/2014 submits that he has not filed the objections to the said IA 1/2016. In the event of remanding this matter to the tribunal the claimant shall be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence. 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Interim application seeking permission to produce additional documents is allowed. The matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal and that can be done only after adducing the further evidence and cross examination of the parties and after verification of authenticity of the additional documents produced by the KSRTC. Therefore both the counsels submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the tribunal for reconsideration reserving liberty to the KSRTC and the claimant to adduce oral and documentary evidence and also for examination of the witnesses. 14. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, I am of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal, after permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case it would suffice for this Court if the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration afresh to safeguard the interest of both parties and also to meet the ends of justice. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the respective parties the KSRTC and the claimant in MFA Nos.2489/2014 & 3093/2014 are allowed. 16. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2013 passed in MVC No.309/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACTX at Tumkur is hereby set aside. 17. The matter stands remitted back to the tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to both parties. 18. The appellant KSRTC and the injured claimant are at liberty to file applications for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence. 17. The matter stands remitted back to the tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to both parties. 18. The appellant KSRTC and the injured claimant are at liberty to file applications for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence. In such an event the applications filed by them shall be received by the tribunal and appropriate orders may be passed. 19. The application filed by the KSRTC before this Court along with documents may be considered by the trial Court and appropriate orders may be passed. 20. The KSRTC and the injured claimant are directed to appear before the jurisdictional tribunal either personally or through the counsel on 11.02.2020. 21. The registry is directed to return the entire original records along with I.A.1/2016 along with the documents filed before this Court to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. 22. The amount in deposit by the insurer shall be refunded to the KSRTC forthwith. 23. Office to draw the decree and award accordingly.