THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR. M.A.C.M.A.No. 746 of 2007. JUDGEMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the Award dt. 17.11.2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad in O.P.No. 672 of 2001. The said claim petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him a motor accident that occurred on 20.12.2000. The case of the 1st respondent is that he was travelling in the Jeep belonging to the 2nd respondent, which was insured with the appellant and the said Jeep met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver. The 1st respondent claims that he was admitted in two different hospitals and had undergone operations and therefore apart from his loss of earnings, he also claimed reimbursement of medical expenses as compensation. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition denying any negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep and disputed that the claim of the petitioner is excessive. Other contentions raised by the appellant was that the driver of the Jeep had no valid driving license and the Policy Ex:B.1 was exhibited by them before the Tribunal. Under the impugned Award, the Tribunal found on issue No.1 that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver and on issue No.2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable and quantified at Rs. 2,50,000/-. With regard to liability of the insurance company, on the basis of the legal position then existing, the Tribunal found that gratuitous passengers are also liable to be covered under the Policy Ex:B.1. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. Heard both sides. It is the specific contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as Ex:B.1 policy is an Act policy, it covers only third party risks and as such the liability imposed on the appellant is not justified. The learned Counsel also submitted that the claimant was travelling in the Jeep by paying fare and as such his risk is not covered by the policy Ex:B.1. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the policy also covers the risk and liability to driver, coolies and employees and a separate premium was paid as is evident from the endorsement on Ex:B1 policy. The learned Counsel also relies upon the cross- examination of Pw.1/claimant wherein a suggestion was put to him stating that he was not travelling as a labourer in the jeep, which was specifically denied by the 1st respondent. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent further submits that Pw.1 in his cross-examination stated that he went to attend agricultural work of one Rahaman Sab at Basar and that generally people will board the jeep to go to their village due to non-availability of buses and basing on the above evidence of 1st respondent, he submits that the aspects as to whether the 1st respondent was travelling as a labourer in the said Jeep and as to whether his risk is covered by the Insurance Policy Ex:B.1, in the light of the endorsement on the policy itself were not considered by the Tribunal and therefore seeks to remand the matter to the Tribunal below for fresh consideration. It is true that the said aspects do not find consideration in the impugned Judgement of the Tribunal. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the 1st respondent stated in his cross-examination that he was running a Kiranashop prior to the accident and also having agriculture and as such he cannot be said to be a labourer or a coolie. However, these are the matters for evidence and it is for the 1st respondent to establish in which capacity he was travelling in the Jeep. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is just and proper to remit the matter to the Claims Tribunal by framing the following additional issue: “Whether the claimant was travelling in the Jeep bearing No. MH 26 C 4459 in the capacity as a Labourer/coolie and if so whether his risk is covered under the Policy Ex:B.1.” Both the parties are at liberty to lead evidence with respect to the above issue now framed and the Tribunal below shall consider the said issue in the light of the evidence on record and shall determine the same. As the finding of the Tribunal on issues 1 and 2 has a bearing on the fresh issue now framed by the evidence which the parties are going to lead, it is just and proper that the Tribunal below should answer all the issues afresh including the issue now framed, by considering the totality of the evidence let in by the parties. Accordingly, the impugned Award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nizamabad for consideration afresh. The Tribunal below is directed to dispose of the O.P. within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. There shall be no order as to costs. While admitting the appeal, this Court by an order dt. 19.4.2007 in MACMAMP.No. 1731 of 2007 granted interim stay of execution of the Award, on condition of the appellant depositing half of the amount of compensation and costs awarded by the Tribunal and that the said order is said to be complied with by the appellant. But in the absence of any order of this Court permitting withdrawal of the amount, the said amount is presumably lying to the credit of the O.P. before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal below shall invest the said amount in a short term fixed deposit for a period of three to six months, if not already deposited, so that the interest accrued shall be paid to the successful party. _____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 30.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR. M.A.C.M.A.No. 746 of 2007. JUDGEMENT DT. 30.07.2010.