By the Court.—This is an application seeking correction of the order dated 10.2.2016 transcribed and uploaded.

2. It is contended that after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh, but on account of some inadvertent mistake, a wrong order has been transcribed and uploaded.

On verification from the shorthand book maintained by the stenographer, it appears that due to inadvertent mistake, a wrong order was transcribed and uploaded.

In view of above, correction application stands allowed. Order dated 10.2.2016 is recalled and is substituted by the following order, which was passed in open Court.

3. “This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the ‘Act’) has been filed by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.11.2015 awarding a sum of Rs. 12,35,000/- alongwith 7% simple interest as compensation to the claimant-respondents.

4. Facts, in brief, are that an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act was filed by the claimant-respondents claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,20,000/- alleging that their predecessor-in-interest, Sunil Kumar died in an motor accident on 1.5.2012 at about 3 p.m. It was further pleaded that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The proceedings were contested by the owner of the offending vehicle as well as insurance company by filing written statement. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 19.5.2015 allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,80,000/- alongwith 7% interest. The Insurance company challenged the same by filing FAFO No. 2183 of 2015. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 20th August, 2015 allowed the appeal, set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with the direction to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the said judgment.

It may be relevant to quote the following from the aforesaid judgment.

“The claim was contested by the appellant insurer by filing the written statement wherein the averments made by the claimant in their claim petition were denied and also submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. The insurance company also claimed that the salary certificate of the claimant has not been verified from the said Sugar Mill. He further contends that with regard to the employment as no documentary evidence has been produced to say that deceased was employed in the Sugar Mill.

In view of the material evidence on record, it would be evident that it is for the claimant to approach the sugar cane factory by filing an application and on the application sugar cane factory to issue certificate with regard to employment of deceased and salary certificate and certificate in respect of the period during which he worked, what was the salary being paid to the deceased on the date of accident and also depute someone on behalf of the employer before the Court. Tribunal shall also issue notice to Sugar Mill and thereafter Tribunal shall pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In view of above, without going into the merits of the appeal, we think it proper that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding afresh.

Accordingly, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut in M.A.C.P. No. 824 of 2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by us.”

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of remand made by this Court, the claim petition was considered afres