JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–insurance company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 11.11.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.454/2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) challenging the liability fastened. Brief facts: 2. On 24.06.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., while the claimant by riding his motor bike bearing registration No.KA-18/L.4477 in a moderate speed, was proceeding near Sangameshwarapete School, the first respondent being the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing registration KA-15/M-1390, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Motor bike of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down from the bike and sustained injuries. 3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on earlier occasion, the Tribunal has passed judgment and award on 11.11.2010, determining compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-fastening the liability on respondent No.2 owner of the Maruthi Car No.KA-15/M-1390, by exonerating the insurance company on the ground that respondent No.2 while driving the car and caused the accident did not possess a Driving License and also for the reason that there was no insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal by the judgment dated 11.11.2010 fixed the liability on the owner of the maruthi car to pay compensation. 6. But subsequently, the owner has filed an application under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC for reopening the case and after reopening the case on the said application, further evidence was recorded and then the earlier judgment was modified and once again redetermined the compensation and liability was shifted on the insurance company to pay compensation. 7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by appreciating the evidence just on the I.A. filed under CPC and reopening the matter. 7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by appreciating the evidence just on the I.A. filed under CPC and reopening the matter. Hence, reversed the finding and order by wrongly fixing the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 11.11.2011 is legally unjustified. Therefore, prays to set-aside the same and requested to confirm the earlier judgment and award dated 11.11.2010. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. In the present case, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has passed the judgment and award on 11.11.2010 determining the compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-by fastening the liability on the owner of the Maruthi Car No.KA-15/M.1390. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for fastening the liability on the owner of the Maruthi Car is that the owner who has driven the car did not have the Driving License to drive the car and also the insurance policy was not produced. Therefore, on these two grounds fastened the liability on the owner of the car. 10. Subsequently, after delivery of the judgment on 11.11.2010, the owner has filed an application under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC, along with two documents and requested the Tribunal to reopen the case for modification of the judgment and award and the Tribunal has allowed the said application and reopened the case and modified the earlier judgment by passing another judgment dated 11.11.2011 redetermining the compensation of Rs.1,19,450/-by fastening liability on the appellant-insurance compensation on the ground that the owner had possessed valid Driving License and the Insurance Policy. 11. After reopening of the case once again the Tribunal has recorded the evidence and modified the judgment passed on 11.11.2010. Whether this approach of the Tribunal in reopening the case after delivery of judgment just because an application is filed under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC is permissible is the question. 12. Respondent No.2 -owner of the offending maruthi car has appeared before the Tribunal by engaging the services of a learned counsel. During the course of the evidence, the owner of the Maruthi Car has not produced the Driving License and the Insurance Policy before the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.2 -owner of the offending maruthi car has appeared before the Tribunal by engaging the services of a learned counsel. During the course of the evidence, the owner of the Maruthi Car has not produced the Driving License and the Insurance Policy before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not the case of the second respondent that on earlier occasion liberty to lead evidence was not given to the owner of the offending maruthi car. He was afforded with an opportunity to lead evidence, but he did not avail the same. 13. Therefore, when a specific contention is raised by the insurance company that the driver was not holding Driving License to drive the car, and the owner-cum-driver who drove the offending maruthi car caused the accident did not produce the Insurance Policy, therefore inevitably the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the owner of the offending maruthi car by delivering the judgment on 11.11.2010. 14. The Trial Court records and the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal reveals that on the earlier occasion, the Tribunal had delivered the judgment on 11.11.2010 by fixing the liability on the owner of the maruthi car. Subsequently, on 23.09.2011, the owner of the maruthi car has filed an application in I.A. No.10 under Order-VIII, Rule-1(3) read with Section-151 of CPC along with Xerox copies of two documents viz., Driving License and the Insurance Policy. The Tribunal subsequently on 11.10.2011 by observing that the insurance company had no objection accordingly allowed the I.A. No.10 and marked the Xerox copies of the documents as Exhibit-R7 and R8 and subsequently on 21.10.2011 the said owner was examined as RW-2 and then heard arguments and ultimately on 11.11.2011, the judgment award is delivered by modifying the earlier judgment and award both on the quantum of compensation, as well as on the liability and subsequently vide the judgment and award dated 11.11.2011, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurance company to pay the insurance company. 15. Order-8, Rule-1 of CPC stipulates as follows: “1. 15. Order-8, Rule-1 of CPC stipulates as follows: “1. Written Statement – The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: *Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” 16. From a bare reading of the said provisions, it is seen that it is an opportunity given to the defendants / respondents to file the written statement within the limitation time prescribed therein. But the Tribunal has taken completely a new procedure, alien to CPC to reopen the case just by an application. When a judgment and award is passed, the remedy available for the owner should have been either to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Court or to file a Review Petition if there are grounds made out for preferring the same. But the provisions under Order-8, Rule-1 of CPC is merely for filing of the written statement through the period set-out therein. There is no scope under Order-VIII, Rule-1 to CPC to alter the judgment and award passed earlier. 17. Furthermore, the Tribunal has passed an order and marked the Xerox copies of the documents without verifying the said documents. Before reopening the case by the Tribunal, the owner has appeared in the case by engaging services of the Counsel. It is not the case that as if the owner was placed exparte. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal in reopening the case where already a judgment and award is delivered, by receiving an application under Order-8, Rule-1 of CPC is completely perverse and illegal exercise of powers. 18. If this tendency like that of the Tribunal in the present case is allowed to be continued, then there are possibilities that all the judgments passed by the Tribunal will once again come under the scope for reopening the case by recalling the earlier order upon the provision under Order-VIII, Rule 1 of CPC and once again contesting the case by producing Xerox copies it leads chaotic situation. This practice should not be entertained. This practice should not be entertained. Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and award dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal by reopening the case is liable to be set-aside. 19. Therefore, the judgment and award dated 11.11.2010 is hereby restored and the claimant is entitled to make a claim against the owner of the offending maruthi car No.KA.15/M.1390, as observed in the judgment dated 11.11.2010. 20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is Allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.11.2010, passed in M.V.C.No.454/2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur is restored and the judgment and award dated 11.11.2011 is set-aside. iii. The claimant is entitled for compensation as per the judgment and award dated 11.11.2010 at Rs.1,27,001/-along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. iv. The owner of the offending maruthi car No.KA.15/M.1390, is held liable to pay the compensation. v. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vii. Draw award accordingly. viii. No order as to costs.