1 s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 11334 of 2008 Shri Pratap Vasant More ... Appellant (Org. Opponent No.2) Vs. Shri Mahadeo Pandhari Adsul & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.S.AlangeAdvocate, for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Ranjan B.Tripathi, i/b. S.M.Vidhyarthi, Advocate, for respondent no.4.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 2nd September, 2009. P.C. 1. Appeal be registered. 2. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, appeal is taken up immediately for final hearing. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, who is the original opponent No.2 and the owner of the Tempo makes a statement that the appellant is aggrieved by clause 4 of the final order passed by the M.A.C.T., Solapur, in M.A.C.P No.167 of 2000. Clause 4 reads as under :- 2 “4. The Insurance Co. is at liberty to recover the claim amount from the owner of vehicle Pratap Vasant More along with interest at the rate of 7.5%.” The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the vehicle of the present appellant was duly insured with the United Insurance Co. Ltd. who was opponent No.3 in the Claim Petition and who is respondent no.4 in the present Appeal. After service of notice of the said claim petition, the appellant had approached the Branch Manager of the Insurance Co. and he was assured that the Insurance Company would be filing the written statement contesting the matter. Therefore, the present appellant did not appear and file separate written statement. However, after the claim petition is decided, he came to now that the Insurance Company had taken a plea that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and due to this, the Tribunal, while passing the award in favour of the claimant against opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. The driver, the owner and the Insurance Company jointly and severally as per clause 2 of the order, also directed that the Insurance Company can recover the claim amount with interest from the present appellant. The learned counsel contends that this direction is in violation of the insurance policy. He submits that in view of the above 3 circumstances, the appellant could not contest the stand taken by the Insurance Company about the validity of the driving licence and could not lead evidence to show that the driver was having a valid licence. The learned counsel also makes a statement that he does not want to challenge the remaining part of the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and the grounds of appeal. 5. The respondents nos. 1 and 2, who are the original claimants, have no objection if this Appeal is allowed taking into consideration the limited scope of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company however has objection about the same. In view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle did not appear and the present appellant also did not file written statement and did not contest the plea taken by the Insurance Company about the validity of the driving licence. In the result, the Insurance Company was allowed to recover whole of the amount of compensation with interest from the present appellant and heavy burden has been put on him. The compensation awarded by the trial Court was Rs.3.19.000/- with interest from the date of the application. The claim petition was registered in the year 2000. Even though the present appellant committed 4 default in not filing written statement, the admitted fact is that the vehicle was insured and that therefore it will be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the appellant to contest the plea of the Insurance Company about the validity of the driving licence. For that, it will be necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court. In my considered opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice :- (1) The Appeal is allowed only limited to the above referred clause 4 of the impugned order dated 20.10.2006. That part of the order is hereby set aside and the Claim Petition No.167 of 2000 is hereby remanded back to the Claims Tribunal, Solapur. The appellant/opponent No.2 shall also have an opportunity to file written statement and thereafter the Claims Tribunal shall hear the present appellant as well as the Insurance Company on the point of breach of conditions of Insurance Policy including the validity of the driving licence of the driver during the relevant period and to pass appropriate order about the liability of the present appellant towards Insurance Company. (2) The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 5.10.2009. 5 (3) This order will not be an obstacle in execution of the said Award at the behest of the claimants against the Insurance Company. (4) The parties shall act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)