Gajjala Padmasri, vs Bhaskar,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5975 Tel

         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.

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

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