AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) THE insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat, by which the insured vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay 50% of the compensation while on the basis of the self-same accident in an earlier order dated 1 .8.2008 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 98 of 2007 (Ram Gopal Verma and others v. Prem Chandra and others) the truck which has collided with the Bolero Jeep has been fastened with the liability of 100%. The contention of the appellant is that inspite of producing the evidence before the Tribunal the same has been ignored by the Tribunal.
(2.) WE are of the view that the evidential value of the judgment and order dated 1 .8.2008 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 98 of 2007 cannot be ignored when the same has been passed on the basis of the evidence produced for the same accident. Therefore, the matter is send back to the Tribunal for consideration of this issue so that the Tribunal upon notice and giving fullest opportunity of hearing can come at an appropriate conclusion with regard to liability of the insured vehicle under the appellant/insurance company carefully. Proceeding is made time bound for a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. Till the decision is taken by the Tribunal, the order impugned dated 27.2.2009 will be kept in abeyance.
(3.) INCIDENTALLY , the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25.000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. I agree.;