JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC No.698/2014. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 16.12.2013 at about 8.15 p.m. the claimant was walking by the side of the road near Batrakodi, Neermarga, Mangaluru. At that time, Innova car bearing registration No.KA19/MC8069 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was working as Neon artist in Saudi – Arabia and was earning Rs.50,000/p.m. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is not maintainable against the respondent. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence by the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1 and Accounts Assistant of Unity Hospital as PW2 and got exhibited 11 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited insurance policy as Ex.R1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1 and Accounts Assistant of Unity Hospital as PW2 and got exhibited 11 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited insurance policy as Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,79,592/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted has raised the following contentions: Firstly, due to the accident claimant has suffered head injury. Due to that injury he was unable to do his day today work. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation for ‘loss of earning due to disability’ on the ground that the claimant has not examined the doctor. Secondly, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and opportunity is given the claimant shall examine the treated doctor or any other doctor toassess the disability. In support of his contentions, he relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of ‘IQBALAHAMED vs. VICE CHAIRMAN, M/S. PATEL INTEGRATED LOGISTICS LTD. AND ANOTHER’ ILR 2017 KAR 3045. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions: Firstly, since the claimant has not established that he has suffered any disability and he ha not examined the doctor, there is no loss of income due to injuries suffered by the claimant. The Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for ‘loss of income due to disability’. Secondly, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the claimant, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest for the delayed period. Hence, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. Secondly, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the claimant, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest for the delayed period. Hence, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries: (1) Multiple abrasion over the face on left side. (2) Cerebral concussion. (3) Cerebral edems with brain stem contusion (C.T.Brain) (4) Sub Arachanold Haemorhage with gyral contusions. (5) Acromio clavicular joint dislocation on left side. (6) Multiple contusion over the left lung. 10. The claimant has produced the wound certificate and discharge summary. Since he has not examined the doctor the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for ‘loss of income due to disability’. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of IQBALAHAMED (supra) has held that in cases where the claimants are not able to examine the doctor, who has issued disability certificate as a witness, due to their poverty, illiteracy, ignorance etc., a proactive role needs to be adopted by the Tribunal and the presence of the doctor is to be ensured by the Presiding Officers by invoking the powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is relevant and same is extracted hereunder: “8. This case is a classic example of the lackadaisical performance of many Tribunals dealing with motor accident claims while discharging their judicial duty. Repeatedly it has come to the notice of this Court that in large number of claim petitions, the claimants are unable to produce either the treating doctor, or the doctor who has issued the disability certificate, as a witness. The claimants may be prevented from producing such witness either because of their poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, or because such witness, being doctors, are invariably too busy to appear before the Tribunals. But in these circumstances, which are beyond the control of the claimant, invariably, it is the claimant who suffers for no fault of his or her. The claimants may be prevented from producing such witness either because of their poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, or because such witness, being doctors, are invariably too busy to appear before the Tribunals. But in these circumstances, which are beyond the control of the claimant, invariably, it is the claimant who suffers for no fault of his or her. Considering the fact that the treating doctor, and the doctor who has issued the disability certificate are material witnesses in a claim petition, it is essential that their presence be ensured by the Presiding Officers of the Tribunal by invoking the power under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.” 11. In view of the above circumstances, the following order is passed: The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation is set aside, in respect of negligence and liability, the same is confirmed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to summon the treating doctor and in case the treating doctor is not available, the Tribunal shall refer the matter to the Medical Board for assessment of disability. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall decide the matter in accordance with law, only in respect of compensation is concerned, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In respect of the contention raised by the Insurance Company regarding the interest for the delayed period is concerned, the Insurance Company can raise the said issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal may consider the same in accordance with law.