L.S. Jamir, J. -- Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Roland, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 33/2010 whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 8, 65,836/- to the respondent No. 1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. 3. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the instant case, 2 (two) vehicles were involved namely, Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. MZ 01 D 2553 and one Tata Truck belonging to the respondent No. 2 bearing registration No. MZ 01 B 6500. The accident took place on 13.5.2007 at around 9.30 AM and as a result of which the husband of the claimant succumbed to his injuries the same day at about 4.30 PM. The Enquiry Officer who was also the witness of respondent No. 1/claimant had reported that the collision between the two vehicles was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Motor Cycle and therefore, the question of awarding compensation did not arise as the deceased was responsible for the said accident. Assuming but not admitting that if contributory negligence was there, the Tribunal had erred in casting the entire liability on the appellant/Insurance Company. He also submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and, therefore, it was for the claimant /respondent No. 1 to prove that the cause of accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tata Truck. However, in the evidence of the Enquiry Officer, it is clearly shown that the cause of accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Motor Cycle and the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding the compensation without considering such evidence which was on record. However, in the evidence of the Enquiry Officer, it is clearly shown that the cause of accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Motor Cycle and the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding the compensation without considering such evidence which was on record. The respondent No. 1/claimant had also failed to prove that the accident was due to the fault on the part of the driver of the Tata Truck alone and the learned Tribunal had also failed to take the same into consideration while awarding the compensation. The learned Tribunal had also failed to take into consideration the Police report which was a part of the document annexed by the opposite party No. 2/ respondent No. 2. Such failure on the part of the Tribunal had caused gross in justice to the appellant and, therefore, he submits that the award of compensation made by the learned Tribunal should be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that from a perusal of the record it would show that no ground for contributory negligence has been taken before the learned Tribunal and that the appellant at this stage are barred from taking new ground before this Appellate Court and that the present appeal has been filed by way of routine procedure by the appellant/Insurance Company. He also submits that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle i.e. the deceased husband of respondent No. 1 inasmuch as the entire record would show that the Motor Cycle had hit the right rear side of the Tata Truck. This would invariably show that the Motor Cycle was on the right side of the road and that the accident was caused purely on the negligence of the driver of the Truck. He also submits that from the records of the learned Tribunal it can be seen that there are two contradictory Police report. The first Police report which was a part of the claim petition would show that the Enquiry Officer of the case did not mention anything about the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle. The first Police report which was a part of the claim petition would show that the Enquiry Officer of the case did not mention anything about the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle. It was only later when the respondent No. 2 had filed the written statement that the other Police report was annexed therein which showed that the rider of the Motor Cycle had caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The offending vehicle i.e. Tata Truck belongs to the Police Department and, therefore, the later Enquiry report was an after thought merely to help out the Department of the offending vehicle. Under such circumstances, he submits that the present appeal has no merit and the same should be dismissed. In support of his case, learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta –vs- Bishun Narain Inter College & Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555 and in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 5. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that as the vehicle i.e. Tata Truck was insured by the Company, no liability can be cast on the respondent No. 2 and that the Tribunal had rightly cast liability on the appellant to pay the compensation . 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the LCRs of the learned Tribunal. 7. From the written statement of the opposite Party No. 2/appellant, it is seen that they have taken a ground that in the FIR dated 13.5.2007, it is clearly proved that the deceased K. Vanlallawma was guilty of rash and negligent driving in causing the accident as he had hit/dash against the rear right side of the Truck while he was taking a turn in the turning road. 8. There is also no dispute that the Motor Cycle had hit the rear right side of the Tata Truck. When the subsequent enquiry report dated 13.5.2007 was exhibited before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit M-1 (A), there was no objection from the side of the claimant. 8. There is also no dispute that the Motor Cycle had hit the rear right side of the Tata Truck. When the subsequent enquiry report dated 13.5.2007 was exhibited before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit M-1 (A), there was no objection from the side of the claimant. The opposite Party No. 2/appellant as well as the respondent No. 2 had taken the ground of rash and negligent driving in their written statements. 9. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether the claim application is maintainable or not. 2. Whether there is any fault on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle involved in this case. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable to pay and to what extent? 10. While giving finding on Issue No. 2, i.e. whether there is any fault on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle involved in this case, the learned Tribunal had considered the written statement of the opposite Party No. 1/ respondent No. 2, FIR dated 13.5.2007 as well as the deposition of the I.O. The learned Tribunal while coming to the conclusion that the cause of the accident is due to the fault of the driver of the Truck, had however, failed to properly consider the depositions of the I.O as well as the FIR and the grounds taken in the written statement by the opposite Party No. 1 and opposite Party No. 2. 11. Another aspect of the matter, both the vehicles i.e. the Motor Cycle and the Tata Truck were coming from opposite direction and the Motor Cycle had hit the right rear end of the Tata Truck. Therefore, while applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur i.e. the accident speaks for itself, this Court is of the opinion that Issue No. 2 has to be again re-considered by the learned Tribunal. While considering Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal should also consider the fact that the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. 12. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-hearing of the claim petition and thereafter pass appropriate order(s)/ award as deem fit. 13. It would be open to the learned Tribunal to frame any other issues if it consideres deem fit. 12. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-hearing of the claim petition and thereafter pass appropriate order(s)/ award as deem fit. 13. It would be open to the learned Tribunal to frame any other issues if it consideres deem fit. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 15.11.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 33/2010 is set aside and quashed. As the matter has been lingering for a very long time i.e. since 2010, it is provided that the re-hearing of the claim petition should be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order of this Court. 14. Accordingly, this appeal petition stands allowed.