JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - This appeal has been filed by Sat Pal, the owner of the vehicle. 2. The facts of the case are that on 28.4.1996 the ballots which had been cast for the Assembly and the Parliamentary elections had to be carried from different booths to Naraingarh. At about 3.00 P.M. on that day, Naib Singh, the driver of vehicle No. HR-37/2910, hit the wall of the Community Hall, Naraingarh causing serious damage to it. The driver then fled from the spot. A claim petition was thereafter filed against the driver, Naib Singh, the owner of the vehicle Sat Pal as well as the Insurance Company, claiming a sum of Rs. two lacs as damages. Subsequently, it was found from Satpals written statement that one Jarnail Singh was in fact the driver of the aforesaid Canter, on which, on the statement of the counsel, the name of Naib Singh was deleted from the array of the parties and Jarnail Singh was substituted instead. The Insurance Company took the plea that the Canter was being driven by Naib Singh, who did not hold a licence and the vehicle also did not have a valid registration/fitness certificate or route permit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Canter No. HR-37-2910 by its driver-respondent No. 1 ? OPP. 2. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the preliminary objections raised by it in its written statement ? OPR. 4. Relief. 3. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that though an admission had been made that Jarnail Singh and not Naib Singh had been driving the vehicle, yet from the evidence on record, it appeared that Jarnail Singh had been deliberately introduced as a driver at a later stage and several reasons were recorded by the Tribunal to arrive at this conclusion. The Tribunal accordingly held that it was Naib Singh, who had been driving the Canter at the time of the accident and that the accident could be attributed to his negligence. The other issues were also decided in favour of the claimants and an award for Rs. The Tribunal accordingly held that it was Naib Singh, who had been driving the Canter at the time of the accident and that the accident could be attributed to his negligence. The other issues were also decided in favour of the claimants and an award for Rs. 1,32,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing claim petition till its realisation was made in favour of the Committee. 4. From the facts of the case and the findings of the Tribunal, it appears that there has been collusion amongst the parties so as to make the Insurance Company liable for the payment of compensation. Naib Singh admitted that he did not possess a driving licence whereas Jarnail Singh did so. I find that Naib Singh has, however, been precluded from defending his case as his name had been deleted from the array of parties, though a finding has been recorded against him. In this view of the matter, the award as laid down is not sustainable. The appeal is accordingly allowed for the reasons given above and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, who shall, after giving Naib Singh an opportunity of defending his case, pass a fresh award. It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order will not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case. The Tribunal will also take into account the judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corp. v. Vaijanti and others, 1995 ACJ 560. The parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Ambala on 13.8.2003, which shall decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of the first appearance of all the parties before it. Dasti order. Order accordingly.