THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDAIAH C.R.P.NO.2685 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner - Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., and no representation on behalf of the respondents – claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 4.5.2009 passed by the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizambad in I.A.No.1024/2009 in O.P.No.1126/2007 in dismissing the petition filed by the insurance company under Order VIII, Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to permit them to file additional counter, the present revision is filed. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed MVOP.No.1126/2006 for the death of one Meesa Gangadhar, who died in the accident that took place on 26.8.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. near Perkit (V), Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District, while the deceased was working as driver on car bearing no.AP -09-EH-T/R-9831. The trial is in progress and when the evidence of P.W.1 is completed, the petitioner – insurer filed the present petition to receive the additional counter affidavit stating that after completion of the evidence of P.W.1, they came to know through the documents filed by P.W.1, that the driver of the vehicle i.e., the deceased, had no valid licence and hence they sought to take this plea by way of filing additional counter affidavit. Their case is that as the driver was not possessing valid licence, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence they are not liable to pay the compensation and the insured who is the owner of the vehicle, having allowed the person with invalid licence, is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, they filed the present I.A. 4. The respondents – claimants filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made by the insurer and sought to dismiss the petition. 5. The court below holding that the application is filed at a belated stage and that permitting the insurer to file additional affidavit, amounts to improving the case, dismissed the I.A. Hence the present revision. 6. From the material available on record it could be seen that the driving licence of the deceased, who was the driver of the crime vehicle, was marked as Ex.A-4 in the evidence of P.W.1. The case of the petitioner – insurer is that after completion of the evidence of P.W.1, when their investigator enquired with the Regional Transport Authority, Nizamabad, it came to light that the driving licence was fake and therefore, they want to take the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of policy, by way of filing additional counter. Though this ground may not have been specifically taken in the earlier counter affidavit, in view of the alleged revelations after the completion of the evidence of P.W.1, and in order to do complete justice to the parties and for better adjudication of the matter, I am of the view, that the court below ought to have allowed the I.A. by permitting the insurance company to file additional counter. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the order as under: “The impugned order is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.1024/2009 in O.P.No.126/2007 is allowed and the revision is accordingly allowed.” 7. No order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------- 29—12—2009