HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A No.54 of 2003 Date: 02.02.2011 Between: The New India Assurance Company ….Appellant. And: Rampally Chakram and 2 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A No.54 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in A.A.O.No.1421 of 1990 dated 15.03.2001. The appellant-Insurance company filed the appeal against the order dated 23.4.1990 passed in O.P.No.2078 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the appellant herein and the owner of the vehicle. The appellant counsel has pleaded that the insurance policy has expired by the date of the accident and the said insurance policy was not produced before the court below but when he wanted to produce the policy as additional evidence in the appeal, the learned Single Judge held that as the appellant has not taken any steps to file the insurance policy in support of their contention in spite of the liberty given by the Tribunal and thereby dismissed the appeal. The only point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for an opportunity to produce evidence before the Tribunal in support of his contention? The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the insurance policy expired even prior to the date of accident and there is no valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The said plea was taken by them in their counter but he has not produced any evidence in that regard before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. When he made a request before the learned Single Judge to give an opportunity for adducing the additional evidence by producing the policy, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant has not availed the opportunity given to him before the Tribunal for producing the evidence and coming up with the petition at a belated stage and thereby rejected his request. The contention of the appellant is that since there is no valid policy as on the date of the accident, they are not liable to pay the compensation. Even though the appellant has not availed the opportunity before the Tribunal, he should have been given an opportunity to establish his contention even at the appellate stage. Production of any evidence by either party cannot be thrown out for the reason of delay in making such submission. Hence, we hold it is just and proper that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to produce necessary evidence in support of his contention before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the L.P.A is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce any evidence in support of their respective contentions. No order as to costs. _____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date: 02.02.2011. Gk/RRB. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A No.54 of 2003 Date: 02.02.2011 Gk/RRB.