Lanusungkum Jamir, J.—Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Company as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei in M.A.C.T. Case No. 13/2007 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the respondent No. 1/claimant compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,23,067 with interest @ 12% from the date of default till actual payment. 2. On 12th April, 2007, respondent No. 1 while returning from a marriage function at Pangkhua, he along with his friends were asked by the driver of the J.C.B. (excavator) bearing registration No. MZ-0D-3659 owned by the respondent No. 2 whether they would like to travel with him on the said J.C.B. as it was going to travel in the same direction as the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 boarded the said J.C.B. and was seated in the lever to the J.C.B. Immediately after boarding at the lever of the J.C.B., the driver of the said J.C.B. started jerking the lever of the J.C.B. and after sometime, the lever of the J.C.B. operated the lever in an unloaded position as a result of which the respondent No. 1 fell down to the ground from the lever at about a height of 10 feet. The lever was the lowered towards the ground and as a result of which it crushed the leg of respondent No. 1 for about one minute. The respondent No. 1 was rushed to Sangau P.H.C. where his wound was treated and was later referred to the Lunglei Civil Hospital. However, as the Lunglei Civil Hospital could not treat the respondent No. 1 properly, he was shifted to the Christian Hospital, Serkawn, Lunglei District. Till the date of the deposition of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal, he was still receiving treatment at the said Christian Hospital, Serkawn, Lunglei. A disability certificate dated 10th August, 2007 was issued to the respondent No. 1 by a doctor wherein the permanent disability of respondent No. 1 was shown as 50%-60%. Till the date of the deposition of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal, he was still receiving treatment at the said Christian Hospital, Serkawn, Lunglei. A disability certificate dated 10th August, 2007 was issued to the respondent No. 1 by a doctor wherein the permanent disability of respondent No. 1 was shown as 50%-60%. On 16th June, 2007, the father of respondent No. 1 lodged an F.I.R. with the Sangau Police Station stating the facts of the incident and, accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered as Sangau PS Case No. 15/2007 dated 19th June, 2007. On 28th July, 2009, the Sagau PS submitted a report stating inter alia that the F.I.R. was filed after two months and because of that spot verification could not be done to ascertain if there was negligence on the part of the operator and as such it seems to be an accidental one. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei by filing the claim petition being M.A.C.T. Case No. 13/2007 culminating in the impugned judgment and award dated 20th June, 2011. 3. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Company submits that the claim petition by itself is not maintainable inasmuch as the claimant has not mentioned the relevant provisions of law under which the claim petition was being filed. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal could not have come to any finding for giving the award. He also submits that in the police report, no name of the driver has been mentioned and that the driving licence of the driver was also not reflected therein. Again, the driving license was also not exhibited before the learned Tribunal. He also submits that the J.C.B. is an excavator and not meant for carrying passenger. Assuming but not admitting that the J.C.B. is a carrying passenger vehicle, the respondent No. 1 would at best be a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, would not be entitled to any award for compensation. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in coming to a conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,23,067. The learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2011 has mentioned that the compensation is to be paid as per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of M.V. Act, 1988. 4,23,067. The learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2011 has mentioned that the compensation is to be paid as per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of M.V. Act, 1988. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads which were not provided for under the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988. Under the circumstances, he submits that the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2011 is not tenable in law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. He also placed reliance in support of his case in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, , with reliance at paragraph 21 therein. 4. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the present appeal should be rejected inasmuch as no permission has been taken u/s 170 of the M.V. Act before approaching this Court. He also submits that the medical certificate has not been controverted before the learned Tribunal by the appellant in his written statement and, therefore, they cannot take any ground against any medical certificate at this stage. As regard, medical expenses which were awarded by the learned Tribunal, has submits that there is nothing wrong inasmuch as in a catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also awarded the medical expenses much beyond the limit prescribed under the Second Schedule of M.V. Act. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for and further submits that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is still under medical treatment and requires huge amount of money even at this stage. In his support, he has placed reliance in the cases of-- (1) Shankarayya and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, . (2) Ashwani Kumar Mishra Vs. P. Muniam Babu and Others, . (3) Aman Singh v. Ishwar and Others, reported in 1999 (3) T.A.C. 10 (S.C.). (4) R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, . 5. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 while adopting the submissions made by Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submits that the owner of the J.C.B. is not liable and it is the appellant that has to pay the compensation as there was no breach of policy. 6. 5. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 while adopting the submissions made by Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submits that the owner of the J.C.B. is not liable and it is the appellant that has to pay the compensation as there was no breach of policy. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for all the parties. 7. First, coming to the question of maintainability raised by the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that there is no permission u/s 170 of the M.V. Act before preferring the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta and Others, therein has clearly laid down the ratio that if the insurance is already a respondent (having been impleaded as party respondent), it need not seek a permission of the learned Tribunal u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. Under the circumstances, this Court therefore, finds no merit in the objection raised by the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and is accordingly rejected. 8. While perusing the record as well as the judgment and award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei, it is seen that the claim petition is not filed under any specific provision under the M.V. Act. Under such a situation and when the same was also brought before the notice of the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has given no reasons as to why the award of compensation was calculated as per the Second Schedule u/s 163A of M.V. Act, 1988 and, thereafter directing the present appellant the pay the same. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there has been some procedural errors which conducting M.A.C.T. Case No. 13/2007 and, thereafter passing the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2011. In view of this, without going to any further details, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2011 cannot be allowed to stand and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei District, Lunglei for a fresh trial following the laid down procedures. 9. The matter is remitted back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei District, Lunglei for a fresh trial following the laid down procedures. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 5th June, 2013 passed by this Court in CM Application No. 89/2012 whereby the appellant company has been directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) only in the Registry of the Court. On the basis of the order dated 5th June, 2013, the appellant has deposited the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000 before the Registry of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the victim/respondent No. 1 may be allowed to withdraw the said amount. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Registry shall allow the respondent No. 1 i.e. the claimant to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest after proper identification and verification. 10. This Court also observes that the appellant Company has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000 as statutory deposit before the Registry of this Court. The Registry is directed to release the same to the appellant Company on application being made and without reference to the Court. 11. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 deposited by the appellant and also considering the facts that the matter has been remitted back to learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei, District, Lunglei, this Court also passes the following directions-- (a) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei, District, Lunglei shall dispose of M.A.C.T. Case No. 13/2007 on or before 31st March, 2014. (b) As the respondent No. 1 has been allowed to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 2,00,000 by the appellant, it is provided that in the event the learned Tribunal comes to the finding that the appellant i.e. the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000 shall be deducted from the total award that will be made by the learned Tribunal. (c) In the event that the learned Tribunal absolves the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 from the respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner of the J.C.B. 12. With the above observations and directions this appeal is disposed of. No cost.