THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.4462, 3563 and 4455 of 2004 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.4462, 3563 and 4455 of 2004 Common Judgment: 1) These appeals arise out of the accident occurred on 16-6-1998, whereupon the claimants by filing the Claim Petitions sought for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2) The facts as per the claim petitions, are that the claimants were travelling along with other labourers with a load of granite stones and that at Chiragpally another lorry came in the opposite direction and gave dash to lorry and that lorry number was not noted. It is seen from the record that the claimants adduced the evidence separately in all the three O.Ps. The driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16T 1653 in which the claimants were travelling, lodged Ex.A.1 FIR stating that one Ashok Leyland lorry came in opposite direction at high speed and gave dash to his lorry due to which the labourers sitting in the lorry sustained injuries and that that the claimants herein were among the labourers. The Tribunal considering the evidence dismissed the O.Ps, holding that the claimants have to file separate O.P under section 161 of the Act. 3) Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants fairly contended that negligence is not the criteria to award the compensation for the claims under section 163-A of the Act, and that the Tribunal has not determined the just compensation for the claimants who sustained injuries while travelling in the lorry belonging to the owner and insured with the insurer. Learned counsel also submitted that the claimants being labourers are entitled for compensation from the owner and insurer even under Workmen Compensation Act also, and therefore the orders under challenge requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 4) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5) It is not in dispute that the claimants sustained injuries while working as labourers on the lorry bearing No.AP 16T 1653 and that the claim petition was filed seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. Considering the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal did not advert to the issues at all properly and dismissed the O.Ps. at the threshold holding that the claimants have to file separate O.Ps, under Section 161 of the Act, in the circumstances, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the claimants by remitting back matter to the Tribunal for adjudication and disposal of the claim petitions afresh, by affording reasonable opportunity for making necessary amendment and for adducing of evidence, if any, by both the parties. 6) Subject to above directions, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7) The CMAs are allowed accordingly. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J kk /22-7-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.4462, 3563 and 4455 of 2004 22-7-2010