ORDER 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.548/2013 whereby an amount of Rs.44,93,342/-was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by claimant-respondent- Manoj Kumar in the accident occurred on 23.01.2013. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-respondent and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.44,93,342/- under various heads in favour of the claimant-respondent. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is that ’whether photocopies of un-exhibited documents can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal for assessing the income of the claimant and passing the award?’ 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the respondent-claimant submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 23.01.2013. Neither any permanent disability certificate was produced on record nor any doctor was examined to prove the disability suffered by the claimant-respondent. Counsel submits that in this matter, evidence of the claimant-respondent was closed on 07.01.2017 and thereafter the case was posted for recording the evidence of the non-claimants since no evidence was produced by the nonclaimants, their evidence was closed on 25.03.2017 and the case was posted for final arguments on 13.04.2017. Counsel submits that thereafter the matter was deferred for one date to another for final arguments, but all of a sudden on 17.02.2018, photocopies of certain documents were submitted on the record of the Tribunal without supplying a copy of the same to the appellant-Insurance Company and the matter was posted for final arguments on 06.03.2018 and the impugned award has been passed on 12.03.2018. On the basis of the photocopies submitted by the claimant-respondent, an exorbitant award to the tune of Rs.44,93,342/ has been passed against the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that no photocopies of any document can be taken into consideration at the time of final arguments unless and until these documents are submitted on record through a proper process following the law and these documents cannot be read or relied until and unless the same are marked as exhibits on the record. 5. 5. Counsel submits that the photocopies of these documents could not have been taken into consideration even without supplying a copy of the same to the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel submits that the appellant-Insurance Company did not get any opportunity to submit any evidence in rebuttal and crossexamine the witnesses. Counsel submits that a novel procedure has been adopted by the Tribunal while entertaining these documents at the stage of final arguments, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel further submits that though no disability certificate was available on the record and even assuming for a moment that this case was a case of 30% permanent disability then the loss of income of the injured could have been assessed on the basis of his 30% permanent disability. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1579/2022 decided on 23.02.2022. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellantInsurance Company and submits that the claimant-respondent was serving in Indian Army and because of the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, he has suffered 30% permanent disability. Counsel submits that in this regard, documentary evidence Exhibit -124 is available on the record. This document has been issued by the Medical Board from which it indicates that the claimant-respondent has sustained 30% permanent disability. Counsel submits that because of the injures and permanent disability suffered by the claimant-respondent, he was reverted from Grade-A to Grade-C cadre and thereafter, premature retirement was given to him and due to which he has suffered loss of income and also the opportunity to get future promotions. Counsel submits that the documents submitted before the Tribunal were the personal/service particulars and the discharge order issued by the Indian Army. Thus, the genuineness of these documents could not have been doubted and the Tribunal has rightly considered these documents while assessing the loss of income of the injured and has not committed an error in appreciating these documents while passing the award. Thus, the genuineness of these documents could not have been doubted and the Tribunal has rightly considered these documents while assessing the loss of income of the injured and has not committed an error in appreciating these documents while passing the award. Counsel submits that the photocopies of the aforesaid documents have rightly been considered by the Tribunal as the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are simple inquiries to be made in favour of the claimant. Counsel submits that inquiry in this Section is not the same as in Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Naresh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2016 SCC Online Raj. 1757. Counsel submits that looking to the documents as well as the oral and the documentary evidence available on the record, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of income of the injured and passed the amount of compensation of Rs.44,93,342/-, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard and considered the arguments of counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2013, thereafter, sufficient opportunities were afforded to the claimant-respondent for leading evidence; finally the evidence of the claimant-respondent was closed on 07.01.2017 and the case was posted for 25.03.2017 for recording the evidence of the non-claimant. 9. Since no evidence was led by the claimant-respondent, hence, evidence of the non-claimant was closed on 25.03.2017 and afterward the case was posted for 13.04.2017, 25.05.2017, 13. 07.2017, 20.07.2017, 29.08.2017, 10.10.2017, 21.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 11.01.2018 and 01.02.2018 for final arguments. One fine morning on 17.02.2018, photocopies of certain documents were submitted, without filing any application to take the same on record and even also without supplying the copy of the same to the non-claimant. Thereafter, final arguments were heard in this matter on 06.03.2018 and after taking into consideration the photocopies of these documents, final award was passed on 12.03.2018. 10. It appears that a novel procedure has been adopted by the Tribunal by allowing the claimant to submit un-exhibited photocopies of certain documents which were never submitted by him by granting ample opportunity to him for leading the evidence. 10. It appears that a novel procedure has been adopted by the Tribunal by allowing the claimant to submit un-exhibited photocopies of certain documents which were never submitted by him by granting ample opportunity to him for leading the evidence. His evidence was closed on 07.01.2017 and thereafter the case was posted for recording the evidence of the non claimant and afterwards the case was posted for hearing on final arguments. 11. At this stage, on 17.02.2018, photocopies of certain documents, which were even not marked as exhibits were taken on on the record of the Tribunal. It is noteworthy to mention here that neither any application was submitted for taking these documents on record nor copy of these documents were supplied to the non-claimant. These documents were not proved by the claimant nor marked as ’Exhibits’. These unexhibited documents could not have been relied upon and then formed basis to award compensation for future loss of income. The non-claimants did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the claimant with regard to the genuineness of the photocopies of the un-exhibited documents. 12. Even then, these un-exhibited documents have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the impugned award has been passed. 13. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sh. Jagdish Lakhanpal & Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online HP 296 has dealt with the identical issue in para Nos. 17 & 18 is as under:- "17. It is more than settled that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of ’exhibit or mark’ on a document does not dispense with its proof, and the same is required to be proved in accordance with law. (Refer the Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1457 Marwari Khumhar Vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri, AIR 2000 SC 2629 ; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arumigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548 ; Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 ). 18. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri, AIR 2000 SC 2629 ; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arumigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548 ; Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 ). 18. Indisputably, save and except the sole testimony of claimant, no other witness who may have issued these bills has been examined and therefore, no credence can be placed on the same and it can safely be concluded that these bills have not been proved in accordance with law. These unexhibited documents could not have been relied upon and then formed basis to award compensation for the past and present medical expanses." 14. The judgment cited by the counsel for the claimant in the case of Naresh Kumar Choudhary (supra) is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case because the public documents i.e. F.I.R. etc. were submitted in this case. In this case the photocopies of the documents were not submitted, while in the present case the photocopies of the un-exhibited documents were submitted at the fag end of the matter i.e. at the stage of final arguments. It is more than settled that mere submitting the photocopies of any document does not amount to its proof. The documents are required to be marked as ’exhibits’ and the same is required to be proved in accordance with law. Thus, assessment of the income of the claimant based on unexhibited documents ’is liable to be quashed and set aside.’ 15. The upshot of the discussion is that, this Court deems it proper to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal with direction to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties till 25.03.2017. 16. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.09.2022. 17. It is expected from the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh within a period of three months from the date of the appearance of both the parties before the Tribunal. 18. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 19. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.