JUDGMENT: C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the Award dated 12.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 77 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, wherein, the Tribunal, while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,96,645/-for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. As seen from the record, originally the claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident which occurred on 04.06.2008 at 07:30 A.M. at Sathamari village, near Shamshabad on Chittoor – Hyderabad National Highway due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099. 3. The facts in issue show that on 04.06.2008 at about 07:30 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding in JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099 from Chittoor to Hyderabad, and when it reached near Sathamari village, met with an accident when the said bus dashed against the road divider due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Relief Hospital, Hyderabad, and after receiving first aid, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad where he was kept in ICU from 04.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. From there, he was shifted to Mother Emergency Hospital, Tirupati where he took treatment from 27.06.2008 to 28.07.2008. Thereafter, he took treatment from Dr.Ravisekhar Reddy, Neuro Physician, as out-patient and underwent physiotherapy in Sri Vigneswara Physiotherapy and Obefit Clinic, Tirupati from 29.07.2008 to 31.12.2008 and was forced to stay in Tirupati for six months. Later, the claimant took treatment in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore by staying in Chittoor. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment in Krishna Physiotherapy Centre in Chittoor. Due to the injuries, the claimant became permanently disabled and cannot move from bed without assistance. During the period of treatment, his earned leave and medical leave were completely exhausted, as such, he availed further earned leave for four months incurring loss in salary. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 180 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the crime bus. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 180 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the crime bus. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent – insurer and the 4th respondent, who is the legal heir of the 1st respondent – owner of the crime vehicle, filed written statements resisting the claim while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the claim for compensation is high, excessive and without any basis. 5. On the strength of the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s bus bearing Registration No. AP03 U 6099? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so, to what amount and from whom? 6. To substantiate his claim, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26. Nobody was examined on behalf of the respondents except getting marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1. 7. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 corroborated from the evidence of Exs.A1 to A3 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus and granted compensation of Rs.5,96,645/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred the present appeal on 07.06.2013. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed the present application i.e. I.A.No. 1 of 2020 on 13.03.2020 praying this Court to receive Original Medical Disability Certificate dated 07.05.2013 issued by the District Medical Board, as additional evidence. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred the present appeal on 07.06.2013. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed the present application i.e. I.A.No. 1 of 2020 on 13.03.2020 praying this Court to receive Original Medical Disability Certificate dated 07.05.2013 issued by the District Medical Board, as additional evidence. 9. It is stated in the accompanying affidavit that the petitioner suffered cervical card injury which is grievous in nature and it is a partial permanent disability, as such, he cannot do his regular house-hold chores, and to this effect, he obtained Certificate for Person with Disability on 07.05.2013 from the Medical Board, Government Hospital, Chittoor, which he could not obtain earlier and produce before the Tribunal in assessing his disability. Hence prays to consider the same for enhancement of compensation. 10. No doubt the Certificate for Person With Disability issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh reveals that the claimant suffered 62% of physical disability, but in our view, the same cannot be looked into unless the person or persons who issued the certificate depose to the contents of the certificate, thereby making it admissible in evidence. 11. In view of the above, I.A.No. 1 of 2020 is allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Award under challenge and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh, after getting the Certificate of Person with Disability, dated 07.05.2013, marked through competent person giving an opportunity to cross-examine the said person, and also taking into consideration the evidence available on record. It is to be noted that the entire proceedings should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.