V.V. Vaze, J.
1. Sajid Parvej Shaikh Abu. a driver in the employment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was driving S.T. bus on his trip from Sarangkheda to Shahada. By the time he hed left Sarangkheda, he noticed a cyclist carrying someone on the connecting bar of his bicycle coming from the opposite direction. According to the driver Sajid Abu the cyclist could not control the vehicle, more so when he was carrying an additional passenger and dashed against the front portion of the bus. The driver Sajid Abu applied brakes but could succeed in bringing the bus to half only after the cyclist had come under the wheels of the bus. Girdhar Vitthal Patil who was the passenger on the bicycle suffered fractures of tibia fibula and right knee leg and, therefore, there was traumatic amputation of the right lug at the junction of the upper l/3rd and lower 2/3rd, as result of which his leg had to be amputated.
2. When Girdhar Patil preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhule, the Tribunal found that the driver Sajid Abu was negligent and awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The M.S.R.T. Corporation being aggrieved by the above order appealed.
3. During the arguments, it was urged at the bar that though the Corporation had filed affidavit evidence of the driver Sajid Abu, the conductor Bansilal Shimpi who was on duty at the relevant time and two panchas Prakash Caudhari as well as Jatansingh Fakira to over that it was the mistake of the cyclist to reverse the road and dash against the bus. no attempt has been made by the petitioner either to require these witnesses for cross-examination or to lead independent evidence regarding the alleged negligence of the driver. In fact the same method was followed by Girdhar Patil the claimant to lead evidence by filing affidavits, but Girdhar was called for cross-examination at the request of the Opponent.
4. Considering the age of the minor claimant and the tragic circumstances of the accident. We find that ends of justice require that the evidence that has been tendered on affidavit should have been subjected to the test of cross-examination, more so when the evidence pertains of factual details about the collision and is not merely of technical nature. As a result, the appeal is allowed and after setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after permitting both the parties to call the dependents, who have already given evidence on affidavits, for cross-examination and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. M.S.R.T. Corporation are permitted to withdraw the amount of the compensation deposited by them in this Court. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. No order as to costs in this appeal.