The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all relevant evidence and circumstances in determining compensation for injuries, and the need for a fair reconsideration of the issue.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant against the judgment and award dated 01.05.2007 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.746/2005 whereby an amount of Rs. 3,47,400/- was awarded as compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident which occurred on 12.12.2002.

2. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on the record and hearing counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellant awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,47,400/- under various heads in favour of the appellant claimant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the injured was posted in Indian Navy in the year 1974. Thereafter, he took voluntarily retirement from Navy in the year 1989 and joined Merchant Navy in London on the post of Electrical Engineer where he was getting a salary of 3500$ per month. Due to the accident, he suffered several injuries and fractures on various parts of his body and he has suffered 54.96% permanent disability. Because of these injuries and disabilities, he was not in a position to rejoin duties in Merchant Navy. Hence, the claimant suffered loss of income and for proving his income, he submitted various documents related to his job/service in Merchant Navy, but the Tribunal has discarded all these documents for the reason that these documents are photocopies and not the original. The Tribunal further hold that the photocopy of the passport was produced on record, hence, the same was not relied. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the accident occurred, the appellant lost his passport and in this regard he lodged an FIR with Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur on 17.06.2003. Counsel further submitted that the claimant was working on the post of Electrical Engineer but without any basis the Tribunal has treated his status as daily wager. Counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the original passport was found and the same was returned to the claimant. Immediately thereafter the claimant submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking the copy of the original passport on record. Counsel further submitted that by mistake duplicate copies of some of the medical bills were submitted. Lastly, counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that under these circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration, so the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding afresh issue No.4.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant-claimant and submitted that during the course of trial, the copies of the original documents related to job of the appellant in Merchant Navy were not produced and even the original passport was not produced, so the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding issue No.4. She further submitted that intentionally the claimant submitted duplicate copies of the medical bills to get more compensation for which an FIR was lodged against the claimant and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against him. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellant has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference of this Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed by the Tribunal as well as other relevant record of the case.

6. Bare perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly indicates that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the relevant documents produced by the claimant to prove this fact that he was working on the post of E