4.12.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. FAO No.103/2008 In FAO No. 172/2002 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Shalinder Singh and Others, this Court on 15.12.2005 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with the following observations:- “4. The next contention raised is that the evidence of the Insurance Company was wrongly closed. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 15.1.2001 and the case was thereafter listed for the evidence of the respondents on 12.3.2001. On that date the Insurance Company had filed process fee for summoning Chain Singh the alleged driver. The summons were not received back. Thereafter, the case was adjourned twice. On both these occasions Chain Singh was not served. On 10.6.2001 the evidence of the Insurance Company was closed. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal has wrongly closed the evidence of the Insurance Company. Chain Singh is now represented before me. 5. In view of the above discussion, though I uphold the award in so far as the question of quantum is concerned, the matter, in so far as it relates to the dispute inter se the Insurance Company and the insured is concerned is remanded to the MACT who shall decide the question whether it is the Insurance Company or the insured liable to pay the compensation after giving both the parties reasonable opportunity in support of their case. The question whether it was Chain Singh or somebody else who was driving the vehicle shall also be determined by the learned Tribunal. Chain Singh who is represented before me shall also appear personally or through his counsel before the Tribunal below and in case the Insurance Company still wants to examine him he undertakes to appear as a witness. The claimant need not appear before the learned Tribunal and the amount deposited in this Court by the Insurance Company shall be paid to the claimant. In case the Insurance Company finally succeeds it shall be entitled to recover the amount from the insured alongwith interest. The parties i.e. the appellant and respondents 2&3 are directed to appear before the learned MACT-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on February 21, 2006. No costs.” Subsequently, Shri Chain Singh, respondent No.2 herein, entered into the witness box and examined himself as RW-3. In the impugned Award now passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 20.11.2007, there is no reference to his testimony. Unfortuntely, the same has been ignored and has neither been considered nor discussed while holding that it was the said Shri Chain Singh, who was driving the vehicle in question and, therefore, in the absence of any valid and effective licence, possessed by him, the insurer could not be said to have indemnified the insured. As such, the liability was fastened solely on the owner, the present appellant. It is rather unfortunate that the orders dated 15.12.2005 have not been complied with by the Tribunal in letter and spirit. As such, the matter is again remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. The Tribunal is directed to decide the issue in terms of the orders dated 15.12.2005, after affording opportunity to the necessary parties. Apparently, the appellant herein took a defence that the vehicle in question in fact was being driven by Shri Kanshi Ram son of Shri Saran Dass. It shall be open for the owner to examine him, if so advised. However, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that if such witness is to be examined, then the owner shall not take more than two opportunities for the said purpose. The matter is remanded back with the direction to comply with the orders and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30th April, 2009. The impugned Award is set-aside. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to agree that the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 6th January, 2009. The record along with a copy of this order be sent back to the Tribunal immediately. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. December 4, 2008 (rana)