THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MACMA. No. 68 of 2010. JUDGMENT: (Per BNRN,J) Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dt. 6.1.2009 in O.P.No. 89 of 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtiyal, the present appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in the O.P. As a matter of fact, the present appeal is filed with a delay of 105 days and the said delay was condoned in MACMP.No. 5013 of 2009 since the respondents have not seriously objected for condonation of delay. The 1st respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 166(1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 13.6.2006 near Manchineella Bavi Chowrastha at Jagtiyal town. The Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence brought on record held that the petitioner sustained 100% disability and fixed his income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and applied the multiplier 17, and granted a compensation of Rs. 10,17,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 8.5% P.A. from the date of petition against the appellant (owner of the crime vehicle) herein and the petition as against the 2nd respondent-insurance company is dismissed without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent in the O.P. filed the present appeal. It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal below failed to see that as on the date of accident, the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited and the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation awarded. It is further contended that the Tribunal below has also failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle renewed his driving licence subsequently after the expiry period and the finding of the Tribunal below that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and the same was expired by 21.11.2002 is baseless. It is further contended that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation or indemnify the insured for the alleged reason that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the petitioner sustained 100% disability and also erred in fixing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and applying the multiplier 18 to assess the total loss of dependency. It is further contended that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the appellant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and consequently absolving the insurance company from its liability and fastening the same on the appellant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the insurance company supported the award under challenge. We have heard the Counsel for both sides. The Tribunal below held that the driver of the offending vehicle failed to get his driving licence renewed within thirty days from the date of expiry and since he got his driving licence renewed only in the year 2004 after its expiry on 21.11.2002 and as the accident took place on 13.6.2003, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and relying on the decisions in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,[1] and National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Vidyadhar Mahariwala [2] held that the appellant alone is liable to pay the compensation awarded and exonerated the Insurance Company. The main contention of the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of accident since he got his driving licence renewed from 1.11.2000 to 31.10.2003 and since the accident occurred on 13.6.2003, he was having valid driving license. It is further contended that since the driver was having valid driving license as on the date of accident, the appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation since the vehicle in question was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company and it is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant filed a Memo No. 6267/C2/2009 dt. 6.7.2009 issued by the Addl. Licencing Authority, Karimnagar wherein it is mentioned that the driving license of Mr.G.Shankaraiah was renewed from 1.11.2000 to 31.10.2003 and the said renewal is not entered in the computer by the contract worker who was engaged for data entry. If the said memo is taken into consideration, it would go to the root of the matter. Therefore, the petition in MACMAMP. (SR) No. 25648 of 2009 seeking to receive the Memo No. 6267/C2/2009 dt. 6.7.2009 issued by the Additional Licencing, Karimnagar as additional evidence is allowed. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal below with a direction to decide the matter on merits appreciating the additional evidence and its effect on the liability of the parties, after giving an opportunity to other parties. In the result, the appeal is allowed and consequently the Award and Decree dt. 6.1.2009 in O.P.No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal below for disposal afresh. The Tribunal below shall dispose of the O.P. within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this Judgement. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.V.S.Rao,J ___________________ B.N.Rao Nalla,J. Dt. 29 -01-2010. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MACMA(SR) No. 25644 of 2009. Dated: 29-01-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA JUDGEMENT IN MACMA(SR) No. 25644 of 2009. CIRCULATED FOR PERUSAL OF HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO. [1] 2008 ACJ 2654 [2] 2008 ACJ 2860.