3.11.2008 Present: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. FAO No.211/2004 The Insurance Company has assailed the impugned Award dated 11.3.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., titled as Rani vs. Deepak Narula and others, whereby a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% has been awarded in favour of the claimants Smt. Rani & Others. A petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimant claiming compensation on account of death of her husband/father Shri Shyam Sunder, aged 28 years, who on 16.10.2000 died in an accident with vehicle No.DL-IPA-2788. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether deceased Shyam Sunder met with an accident on 16.10.2000 when driving a scooter with his daughter which met with an accident with the vehicle No. DL-IPA- 2788 driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently as alleged? …OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? ….OPP 3) Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? ..OPR 4) Relief. After giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, the Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the claimant holding that Shri Kedar Nath, driver of Bus No. DL-IPA-2788 was negligent in driving the vehicle, which caused the accident in which the deceased Shri Shyam Sunder had died. Taking into account the age 28 years and other attending factors, a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- as compensation was awarded to the claimants. The Tribunal also held the driver to have possessed an effective and valid driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, the Insurance Company filed application CMP No.528 of 2005 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the original reply by taking a defence that the insurance policy stood cancelled for the reason that the cheque issued by the owner towards the premium amount was dishonoured and the insurer was not liable to pay the amount. Another application being CMP No.629/2004 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was also filed seeking permission to lead additional evidence. After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the parties prayed that the appeal be disposed of and the following consent order be passed:- 1) The findings returned by the Tribunal on all the issues are upheld. 2) The amount as awarded by the Tribunal and deposited before this Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Insurance Company and the owner, be released to the claimant along with upto date interest. 3) The amendment application CMP No. 528/2005 is allowed. The amended reply filed before this Court by the Insurance Company is taken on record. 4) The matter is remanded back for the limited purpose of framing of additional issue and decision thereof. 5) The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to the owner to file rejoinder. Thereafter, on the limited ground based on the amended pleadings, an additional issue shall be framed by the Tribunal. 6) The Tribunal shall afford sufficient opportunity to the owner and the Insurance Company to lead evidence on the newly framed issue. 7) Thereafter, the Tribunal shall hear the parties and decide the matter. 8) The parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournments. 9) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st December, 2009. The record along with a copy of this order be sent back immediately. The Tribunal shall issue notice to the parties. The claimants need not join the proceedings before the Tribunal as the remand is for a limited purpose. CMP Nos. 629/2004 and 528/2005 In view of the disposal of the main matter, these applications also stand disposed of. Copy dasti. November 3, 2008 (Sanjay Karol),J. (rana)