MACA NOs.424 of 2007 & 637 of 2008. 31.8.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants, respecti vely, challenging the award dated 31.1.2007, passed by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims T ribunal: Northern Division: Sambalpur, in Misc.(A) case No.72 of 2000(D), awarding Rs.11,58,00 0/- as compensation and holding the deceased to have contributed to the accident, directing th e Insurance Company to pay 50% of the awarded amount amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- along with int erest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACA No.424 of 2007) submits t hat as there was sufficient materials on record, including the police papers, to show that the vehicle (truck) bearing no.ORD/9198 was not responsible for the accident and that the acciden t was due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased driver of the motor cycle, who was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, learned Tribunal erred in fixing 50% liability on the present appellant, as the insurer of the truck. In this regard, it is submitt ed that as the FIR (Ext.1) and the Charge Sheet (Ext.2) clearly revealed that the deceased dri ver of the motor cycle was rash and negligent in causing the accident, learned Tribunal was no t justified in holding that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and accordingl y saddling 50% liability on the insurer of the truck. It is accordingly submitted that the imp ugned award, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay 50% of the awarded amount cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in MACA No.637 of 2008) submits that as the evidence of P.W.2, who was working as a helper in the offending truck, clearly goes to sho w that the said truck was parked on the middle of the road without any parking light, which wa s the primary cause of the accident, learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the same and holding t hat both the vehicles were rash and negligent in causing the accident. In this regard, it is s ubmitted that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the police papers in holding it to be a cas e of contributory negligence, ignoring the evidence of P.W.2. It is further submitted that as the deceased was working as a Fitter (Grade-I) in NALCO, Angul and was getting salary of Rs.12 ,000/- per month, as per the Salary Certificates (Exts.6 and 7), learned Tribunal erred in ign oring the same and taking the net salary of the deceased to be Rs.9000/- per month, for calcul ating the compensation amount payable. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and without exp ressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh, after providing opport unity of hearing to the parties. It is open for the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective c ases and take all such pleas as are available to them in law, which shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law. As the claim is of the year 2000, learned Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the matt er as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of re ceipt of certified copy of this order. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in MACA No.424 of 20 07 in the Registry of this Court along with the accrued interest thereon be refunded to the ap pellant-Insurance Company forthwith. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. (S.C.PARIJA, J.) 2