JUDGMENT Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company which was the respondent No.2 before the Fast Track-III and Addl. MACT at Tumkur aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.11.2012. 2. It is the case of the respondent No.1- claimant that her son Sri K.P.Srinivasa while traveling in TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA16 7191 to go to Muthyalamma temple in Ramagiri Mandal on 06.04.2010 met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle, due to impact, the passengers in the vehicle had sustained grievous and simple injuries. Sri K.P.Srinivasa sustained grievous injury and was admitted to a Government hospital, Pavagada. After taking treatment for two days as 'inpatient', on 07.04.2010, the said K.P.Srinivasa succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. It is further case of the claimant that at the time of accident and prior to the accident, the deceased K.P.Srinivasa was hale and healthy and was a Computer Operator in yuva.com in Madhugiri and was earning salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. The claimant-mother of the deceased was completely depending upon the salary of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and so the claimant sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. 3. The respondent No.1 herein was the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the TATA sumo vehicle and the appellant herein is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 inspite of issuance of notice did not appear and was placed ex parte. The appellant herein had appeared before the Tribunal, but did not file written statement within the prescribed time, but however, he filed an application thereafter along with the written statement seeking permission from the Tribunal for acceptance of the written statement beyond the period prescribed, the same came to be rejected. 4. The claimant thereafter adduced evidence and got marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and closed her side. The appellant herein had crossexamined the claimant i.e., PW-1, but could not lead the defence evidence in view of non-acceptance of the written statement. 4. The claimant thereafter adduced evidence and got marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and closed her side. The appellant herein had crossexamined the claimant i.e., PW-1, but could not lead the defence evidence in view of non-acceptance of the written statement. Based on the arguments and the evidence adduced, the Tribunal framed issues and came to the conclusion that respondent No.1- the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. But the entire amount and the liability was saddled jointly against both appellant and respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said award/compensation, the appellant- Insurance company is before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant- Insurance company and the learned counsel for respondent No.1- Claimant. 6. The respondent No.2 served and represented by a counsel but there is no representation before the Court today. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and the award of the Tribunal is illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the appellant herein to file its written statement and that despite filing the application for accepting the written statement before the evidence was recorded, same was rejected by the Tribunal and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the delay in filing the written statement was due to nonavailability of the documents and non-furnishing of the same by the Insurance company, due to which, he was unable to file the same on time. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that being aggrieved by the rejection of acceptance of the written statement, the appellant preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.49367/2014 before this Court, but the same came to be withdrawn in view of the fact that the Tribunal had disposed of the claim petition by way of final judgment and award on 30.11.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that he may be provided an opportunity to rely on the written statement filed by him and he may be permitted to cross- examine the witness based on the pleadings and to lead his evidence to bring out the truth. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that he may be provided an opportunity to rely on the written statement filed by him and he may be permitted to cross- examine the witness based on the pleadings and to lead his evidence to bring out the truth. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri Patel D.Karegowda vehemently opposes the said contention of the appellant contending that the appellant herein has been negligent in not filing the written statement on time as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application for permission to accept the written statement and there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also contends that challenging the order of rejection of acceptance of written statement vide writ petition is pursuant to the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 10. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that apart from the issue of 'nonacceptance of the written statement', the judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law in view of the fact that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking into consideration the deduction towards personal expenses and hence, even on that ground, the judgment and award is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have perused the materials on record and having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that arise for determination before this Court is; "Whether the appeal is to be allowed and whether the appellant is to be provided an opportunity to lead his evidence and to crossexamine the witness- PW.1 on the basis of its pleadings"? 12. It is seen that no doubt the Tribunal has considered the aspect of strict rule of following the procedure of accepting the written statement, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity is to be provided to the appellant to lead its evidence by relying on the pleadings in the written statement. The short point for consideration before this Court is; 'Whether the appellant is to be provided an opportunity to adduce his evidence and whether the non-acceptance of the written statement has caused prejudice to the appellant?' 13. The short point for consideration before this Court is; 'Whether the appellant is to be provided an opportunity to adduce his evidence and whether the non-acceptance of the written statement has caused prejudice to the appellant?' 13. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the matter with regard to the award of compensation by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be remanded back to the trial Court on the short point of acceptance of written statement and for further evidence of both the parties; The principles of natural justice will be met if an opportunity is given to the appellant to put forth all his available defence. However, this order will not harm either of the parties if a time-bound trial is fixed and the parties are put to terms. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track-III and Addl. MACT at Tumkur in MVC No.285/2011 is hereby setaside. The Tribunal is directed to take the written statement of the appellant on record. The Tribunal is at liberty to frame additional issue, if necessary. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of both the parties before the Tribunal. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.07.2020 without awaiting any notice from the Court. Registry is directed to return the records to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition without being influenced by the order of this Court. In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2013 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2013 is disposed of.