JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and award of dismissal dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mehsana at Visnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 394 of 2012 (Old No. 49 of 2007). 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the Claim Petition has been oblivious of the fact that Exhibit 20 was produced and the documents were referred in the examination-in-chief at Exhibit 19 and evidence has come on record regarding the hospitalization and injury. By list of documents at Exhibit 20, almost all 13 documents have been produced, the learned Judge in the judgment and award has relied upon Document No. 13 produced at List 20 as Mark 20/13. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered the other documents though it had been referred in the examination-in-chief. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. D.K. Chaudhari has submitted that it is a practice before the learned Tribunal to get the endorsement of the respondent’s Advocates and as per the original record and proceedings, the Advocates have received the copy of the documents on the date of production while they did not raise any objection to any of the documents. Hence, it was the bounded duty of the learned Tribunal concerned to pass order below Exhibit 19 as all the documents of Exhibit 20 were referred in the Affidavit produced under Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is further submitted that the Affidavit in chief was placed at Exhibit 19 while the Court Clerk had placed the list of documents at Exhibit 20 and neither the learned Advocate or the claimant would know about the process of the Court, unless and until it has been noted by the Bench Clerk. It is further submitted that the claimant has referred to all the documents in his examination in chief and it is the learned Tribunal who has failed in its duty to pass an order on the basis of the examination-in-chief and thereafter, should have permitted the respondents to cross examine the witnesses. It is further submitted that the cross examination also refers to the documents on record and on the basis of the cross examination, the learned Tribunal was required to pass an order for the documents to be exhibited. It is further submitted that the cross examination also refers to the documents on record and on the basis of the cross examination, the learned Tribunal was required to pass an order for the documents to be exhibited. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal in absence of examination of the Doctor, was required to follow the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . 4. On the other hand, learned Advocates Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar and Mr. Tanmay B. Karia appearing for the Insurance Company of the Tractor as well as for the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle respectively submitted that since the documents have not been proved on record, the matter requires to be dismissed. 5. Heard the submissions canvassed and perused the records of the case. It is unfortunate to note that the learned Tribunal at the relevant time has failed to pass any order below the Affidavit Exhibit 19 filed under Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the CPC. The list was produced at Exhibit 20 and all the documents produced at list Exhibit 20 had been referred to in the examination-in-chief. The learned Tribunal has failed to pass any order of admitting or rejecting the documents referred to. The cross examination of the respondent/s does not suggest that they had any objection to the documents produced. Further, the list produced shows that the true copy of the First Information Report, Panchnama, Policy was produced on record. The License, R.C. Book and Insurance Policy are those documents which the claimant would receive only from the Investigating Officer and those documents have not been denied nor the Insurance Company has denied of any Policy of the vehicle involved. It appears from the record that the learned Tribunal has failed in its duty to pass necessary orders for the documents referred in the examination-in-chief. 6. A perusal of the judgment and award shows that the learned Tribunal has referred to the documents produced at Mark 20/13 which was the judgment and award dated 09.09.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 378 of 2013 to answer the issue No. 1, the negligence aspect on the principle of res judicata. 6. A perusal of the judgment and award shows that the learned Tribunal has referred to the documents produced at Mark 20/13 which was the judgment and award dated 09.09.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 378 of 2013 to answer the issue No. 1, the negligence aspect on the principle of res judicata. It also appears that the learned Tribunal has referred to the list at Exhibit 20, but has rejected the claim petition observing that the Injury Certificate, Disability Certificate and bills have not been proved. The cross examination on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - the Insurance Company refers to the accident bill of Rs. 42,000/- which itself shows the admitted position and the ground to admit those documents in evidence. In the cross examination, the injury and hospitalization has been proved. Thus, there was no ground to deny the injury and bills produced on record. Further, the compensation amount is required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the Injury Certificate to decide the functional disability of the claimant. 7. It is also to be noted that the learned Advocates for the respondents did not place any endorsement of any objection from their side. Further in the cross examination none of the documents referred in the chief examination have been objected to, rather the Insurance Company has referred to the amount of Rs. 42,000/- as the medical expenses of the claimant. Thus, the disability certificate was required to be referred to by the learned Tribunal to decide the functional disability which could have been done as per the ratio laid down in the case of Rajkumar (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mehsana at Visnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 394 of 2012 (Old No. 49 of 2007) is quashed and set aside. 9. As per the law laid down in the case of Rajkumar (supra), for a limited purpose, the matter is required to be remanded to the concerned learned Tribunal to consider the documentary and oral evidence in this regard. 9. As per the law laid down in the case of Rajkumar (supra), for a limited purpose, the matter is required to be remanded to the concerned learned Tribunal to consider the documentary and oral evidence in this regard. M.A.C.P. No. 394 of 2012 (Old No. 49 of 2007) is ordered to be restored on the File of the learned Tribunal with a direction that the issue No. 2 regarding the liability be decided on merits, in accordance to the evidence on record. An opportunity be granted to all the parties to provide the evidence on record. All the parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Tribunal and to conclude the petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.