JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, made in MCOP.No.398 of 2008, dated 08.04.2013. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in MCOP.No.398 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli. The first respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.03.2007. 3. According to the first respondent, while he was travelling in the load Auto bearing Registration No.TN 49 D 0092 as a loadman, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto, Auto got capsized and in the said accident, the first respondent sustained injuries. He has claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 4. The second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant filed counter statement resisted the claim on the ground that the first respondent travelled as a gratuitous passenger in violation of permit and policy conditions and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the second respondent and the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. Considering the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,59,200/- as compensation and directed the appellant to pay the said amounts to the first respondent. 7. Against the said Award, the appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the first respondent travelled in the load Auto as gratuitous passenger. As per permit and policy condition, only the driver can travel in the load Auto. In the present case, five persons, including the driver had travelled in the load Auto. The Tribunal having held that the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation, erred in directing the appellant to pay the compensation in operative portion of the Award. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the first respondent did not travel as a gratuitous passenger. On the other hand, he travelled as a loadman and there is no violation of permit and policy conditions. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the first respondent did not travel as a gratuitous passenger. On the other hand, he travelled as a loadman and there is no violation of permit and policy conditions. The Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 11. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the first respondent travelled as gratuitous passenger in violation of permit and policy conditions and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. Further, the appellant has filed copy of the policy as well as RC Book. The Tribunal has not considered the defence taken by the appellant in the counter statement and did not frame any points for consideration in the MCOP, whether the first respondent travelled in Load Auto as a loadman or gratuitous passenger. There is no discussion or finding by the Tribunal in this regard. 12. For the above reason, the Award of the Tribunal is set aside and MCOP.No.398 of 2008 is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide whether the first respondent travelled as a loadman or gratuitous passenger and whether there is any violation of permit and policy conditions and whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation. Since the MCOP is of the year 2008, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum/Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli, is directed to dispose of the said MCOP.No.398 of 2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.