HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.750 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners filed MV OP No.445 of 200 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nandyal against the respondents, claiming compensation on account of the death of their son. According to them, the deceased was engaged as a coolie by the 1st respondent, in his Tractor bearing No.AP 26 H 9493 for the purpose of loading and unloading of stones, and due to the accident that occurred on 04-08- 2008, the son of the petitioners died. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the matter was being contested by the 2nd respondent alone. 2. The petitioners closed their evidence, but at a subsequent stage, filed I.A. No.733 of 2010 with a prayer to summon the 1st respondent to depose as a witness. According to them, they did not have an opportunity to elicit information from the 1st respondent as he did not figure as a witness and it became necessary for them to take summons to him. The Tribunal dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 12-01-2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. None appears for the 1st respondent. 4. The effort of the petitioners is to establish the factum of the deceased having been employed with the 1st respondent. That fact becomes relevant to substantiate their claim, be it with reference to provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This is not a case where the petitioners failed to cross-examine the 1st respondent. The Tribunal observed that the petitioners closed their evidence and have filed the application to summon the 1st respondent. The question of the petitioners taking steps to summon the 1st respondent in the course of their evidence does not arise. The plaintiffs or petitioners in a set of proceedings have to wait till the respondents appear as witnesses. That eventuality can take place only after closure of their evidence. Once, it emerges that the 1st respondent is not forthcoming; the petitioners filed the present application. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No.733 of 2010 shall stand allowed. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 06, 2011. KTL