1. This appeal is by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability as well as quantum.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle submits that the owner of the vehicle after receiving notice from MACT/SCCH No.7, Bangalore in MVC 2370/2001 filed by the claimant against him and the insurance company, he contacted the insurer regarding steps to be taken in the matter who obtained his signature to a vakalath stating that they would entrust the matter to their panel Advocate and the will look after the same and he need not have to worry about the case. Accordingly, a panel Advocate of the insurance company had filed vakalath for the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company and he was appearing for both the owner and the insurance company. But later, he retired from appearing on behalf of the owner without issuing him any notice. Consequently, nobody represented him in the case and case was proceeded in his absence and the impugned Judgment and award came to be passed by fastening liability against him. He submits that if the owner had come to know about the retirement of learned advocate appearing in the case on his behalf, he would have made an alternative arrangement for defending his interest in the matter and in such an event, the liability would not have been fastened against him. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal and to remand the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the claim petition afresh by giving him an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that the owner of the offending vehicle voluntarily approached the insurer and signed the vakalath requesting to arrange for the service of an advocate to defend his interest in the matter. Accordingly, the insurer had arranged for the service of their panel advocate and the said advocate was appearing for both the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle. Later, he had to retire from the case from appearing on behalf of the owner by filing a memo on 29.3.2004 along with a letter dated 26.3.2004 addressed by the insurer to the owner informing him to make his own arrangements to defend his interest in the matter, stating that due to conflict of interest, he cannot continue to appear for both the insurer and the owner and he is retiring from the case from appearing on behalf of the owner. He submits that the Tribunal considering the reasons stated in the memo has rightly permitted their panel advocate to retire from the case from appearing on behalf of the owner, as such there is no lapse or letches either on the part of the insurer or on their panel advocate. He submits in the appeal, the insurer has filed an application under Order XLI and Rule 27 r/w section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to produce the letter dated 26.3.2004 and the postal acknowledgement by way of additional evidence to show that the letter dated 26.3.2004 addressed by the insurers to the owner intimating him to make his own arrangements to defend his interest in the matter has been served on him. He further submits that in two other claim petitions arising out of the very same road traffic accident, the liability has been fastened against the owner of the offending vehicle and further, the owner has satisfied the awards and thereby he submits that even if the owner of the vehicle had notice of retirement of their panel advocate from appearing in the case on his behalf and made alternative arrangement for defending his interest in the matter, the result would have been the same and therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. With this he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Although, the claimant was served with the notice of appeal, he remained unrepresented. Hence, I have heard the learned counsel f