G.D.SHARMA, J. - (1.)This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-4-95 passed by the learned single Judge in CIMA No. 174/93 (titled Mst. Sharief Jan v. Jasbir Singh). Brief facts of the case are that on 2-4-90, Manzoor Hussain (a young boy of 18 years) was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in Truck No. JKP 5275 which met with an accident at a place known as "Gundi" in Poonch District. Manzoor Hussain died an instantaneous death. The accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by respondent 4 (Jeet Singh). Respondent 3 was the owner of the said offending vehicle who had insured the same with the Insurer (appellant herein).
(2.)Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the said deceased and they filed claim petition in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Poonch (hereinafter referred to as MACT) which was resisted by the appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were raised :-
"1. Whether vehicle No. 5275-JKP met with an accident at Gundi Tehsil Haveli due to the rash and negligent act of driver Jeet Singh? OPP2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-? OPP3. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, if so, what is the effect on the claim? OPD.4. Relief."

(3.)The learned Presiding Officer MACT decided all the issues against respondents No.s 1 and 2 (petitioners therein) and the petition was dismissed. This order was challenged in appeal by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned single Judge of this Court vide impugned order held that the learned Presiding Officer (MACT) had wrongly decided the claim petition under the provisions of old Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. 4 of 1939) when the same stood repealed and new Act (Act No. 59 of 1988) had been substituted. The findings on issue No. 1 were set aside and it was held that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver Jeet Singh. Relying upon the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench case of Gujarat High Court namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben Sultan Singh Jadav, AIR 1993 Guj 171, as well as that of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kikilaben Chandravadean, AIR 1987 SC 1184, it was also held that the appellant herein was liable to indemnify the insured (respondent 3). Further, the learned Presiding Officer (MACT) was directed to decide issue No. 2 on the basis of the evidence which the parties had let in. The scope of this remand order was broadened when it was specifically mentioned that parties could also lead additional evidence if they desired so.