THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MA.CMA.NO.3076 OF 2017
JUDGMENT
Assailing the order and decree dated 23.03.2017 passed by the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court) Nalgonda in O.P.No.902 of 2011, in rejecting the claim of the claimants on the ground that they failed to establish their relationship with the deceased, the claimants filed the present appeal.
2. Heard Sri G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- insurer.
3. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the claim of the claimants is that the 1st claimant is the wife of the deceased - Koti Reddy, and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased.
4. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 and as no rebuttal evidence was led by the respondents, held that accident occurred on 16.09.2011 was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker bearing No. AP 05 U 9394 and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident. The Tribunal further held that the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner/insured and the insurer of the crime tanker are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2
5. Considering the issue whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, the Tribunal held that except the self-serving statement of P.W.1, that she is the wife of the deceased and that claimants 2 and 3 are their children, there is no documentary evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal.
6. In the preset appeal claimants filed MA.CMA.MP.No.5409 of 2017 to receive copies of the documents viz., ration card and family members' certificate as additional evidence and to grant compensation.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.2 disputed the documents sought to be marked as additional evidence. However, he did not dispute the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime tanker and that claimant succumbed to injuries caused in the said accident. He also did not dispute the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability on the insured and the insurer of the crime vehicle.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is confirmed. With regard to issue No.2, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to permit the claimant No.1, who was examined as P.W.1, to seeking for reopening of her 3 evidence, and for marking of the above stated documents i.e., ration card and family members' and other documents, if any, to prove the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. On marking of such documents, the respondents are at liberty to cross-examine the claimant No.1 only in respect of those documents and thereafter, to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, on the said aspect. After closure of the evidence, the Tribunal is directed to decide the said issue i.e., issue No.2 afresh, and depending on the finding of this issue, to decide the quantum, and to grant appropriate compensation in accordance with law.
9. The above stated exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties shall co-operate with the Tribunal for disposal of the case afresh on the above states issues within the time frame fixed above.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
----------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:17--11--2022 AVS