IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 463 of 2010. Date of Decision :04.07. 2011. National Insurance Company Ltd., ….Appellant. Versus. Mehar Chand and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribnunal-II, Solan, camp at Nalagarh whereby the claimant-respondent No.1 was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- on account of injuries in the nature of disfigurement having been caused to the respondent No.1-herein. 2. The grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-herein, for setting aside the award are that (a) no opportunity was granted to the insurance company to lead evidence (b) that even if the record is accepted as it is and if Ex. R3 is perused on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has fastened liability on the appellant-herein, that is against law as the Insurance cover note which has been produced (Ex. R3) is valid for the period 9.3.2004 to mid night of 8.3.2005. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the award cannot be 2 sustained as it discloses complete non application of mind by the learned Tribunal, as the accident occurred on 16.11.2005. 3. Notice of this appeal was issued to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the first submission urged on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted, from the record as the order itself shows that an opportunity was granted to the insurance company to lead evidence which opportunity was not availed of. 5. Adverting to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, I find from the record that issues were settled on 6.10.2008 and it was listed for evidence of the respondent/claimant on 4.1.2010. On that date, two witnesses were examined and notice under Order 16, Rule 12, CPC was issued to witness MHC and the case was listed for 8.1.2010 when one witness was examined and the case was listed for respondent/claimant’s evidence on 10.2.2010. On that day one witness was examined and documents were tendered in evidence by the respondent-claimant which closed its evidence. 6. Without entering into this controversy, what I find is that the second submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no valid insurance policy and the learned Tribunal should have applied its mind to the facts of the case to ascertain from the record as to whether Ex. R3 itself constitutes a document on the basis which liability could have been fastened on the Insurance Company. 3 7. In these circumstances, I have left with no alternative except to remand this case to the learned District Judge who shall readmit the petition on its record and assign it to the concerned learned Tribunal. It is clarified that only evidence to be allowed after remand will be with respect to the fact that as to whether the accidented vehicle was insured with the appellant herein or that there was valid insurance policy on that day. The other findings on record with respect to the grant of compensation shall remain as there. If it is found that there was no valid insurance policy then the liability obviously is that of the other respondents. This appeal is allowed as per the directions issued above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Solan on 5.8.2011. Record be sent back forthwith. (Dev Darshan Sud), 4th July, 2011. Judge. (jai)