HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2014 of 1998 DATED: 31.12.2009 Between: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. .. Appellant And Abdul Saleem and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2014 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 28.12.1995 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad in W.C.No.2241 of 1994. 2. The first respondent/injured claimant filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the learned Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of the injuries and permanent disability sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.05.1992 at 3.00 p.m. while he was driving the jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374 which he lost control and dashed against the lorry. There is no dispute about the fact that the first respondent-applicant was the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374, was employed by the second respondent-owner of the said jeep and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Against the claim made by the first respondent, the learned Commissioner by his order dated 28.12.1995 granted compensation of Rs.87,980/- considering the permanent partial disability assessed by PW.2 – doctor, who issued Ex.A.4 – disability certificate. 3. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company contended inter alia, that in the course of enquiry before the learned Commissioner the appellant filed Ex.B.1 memo along with letter No.C.No.10888/B3/95 of RTC, Nizamabad to prove that on the alleged date of accident the driver, who is the applicant had no valid driving licence to drive the jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374 and that letter reveals the renewal certificate was issued for light motor vehicle (transport) to the applicant-injured mentioning therein that the licence was renewed from 08.01.1995 to 08.01.1998, basing on the medical certificate produced by the driver and the said document was not at all referred by the learned Commissioner in his order and therefore, it has been urged that the matter be remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh disposal after considering Ex.B.1. 4. I have heard the learned counsel on record. 5. Since the material evidence produced by the appellant has not been considered by the Commissioner, it occasioned in the miscarriage of justice and as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the matter has to be considered by the Court below afresh. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal after considering Ex.B.1 document. The parties were also permitted to adduce fresh evidence if any, and the Court below is directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 31.12.2009 kvrm