IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2691 of 2010 Between: K. Jaya Sree and 3 others ..Petitioners AND I. Hanumanth Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 16-06-2010 by which I.A.No.1226 of 2010 in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2007 was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The learned Judge did not see any valid grounds to examine 2nd respondent and also dismissed the petition on the ground that it is belated at the stage of arguments. Heard Sri P. Srihari Nath, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and no notice is being ordered to the respondents as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The affidavit in support of I.A.No.1226 of 2010 mentions that WCA/FC/CR-36/07 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act at Bidar has nothing to do with the claim made in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Medak, the claims having arisen under a Group Mediclaim policy and the vehicle insurance policy respectively. The revision petitioners desired to examine the 2nd respondent for the said purpose. The request was resisted by the 2nd respondent claiming that the prayer was made at a very belated stage to drag on the matter. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the material papers accompanying the revision petition containing the copies of insurance policies, the first covering the crime vehicle dated 11-05-2006 and the second covering the Group Mediclaim policy dated 05-09-2006. The learned counsel also provided a copy of the order in the case before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, which specifically referred to the claim therein being on the insurance of the employees by the employer under an Employee’s Insurance Scheme under the policy, the copy of which was filed with this revision petition. This document may show some basis for the claims of the revision petitioners about the claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation being different and distinct and the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2007 should have a reasonable opportunity of proving the same. However, the revision petitioners can do so by producing authenticated and admissible copies of the insurance polices in question and the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and/or any other documents, which can corroborate their contentions in this regard and for that purpose, the 2nd respondent herein need not be compelled to attend the Court as a witness. The burden of proof is on the revision petitioners, which they have to discharge and there need not be any doubt that if they make any appropriate application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the same will be considered with the sympathetic compassion it deserves. Therefore, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition without costs, the revision petitioners are declared to be at liberty to produce the relevant documentary or other evidence concerning their pleas before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2007 and the Tribunal shall give every reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioners in this regard, if approached with an appropriate request. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-07-2010 Ksn