HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3925 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.134 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur dated 19.07.2002. The factual back ground for the appeal is that the appellant then aged about 55 years was an agriculturist and an agricultural labourer and while he was proceeding in jeep No.AP 04-B-54 to Timmampalli on 18.02.1995, a bus bearing No.AP 02 T 2467 coming in the opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently dashed against the jeep at about 5 P.M. and the appellant claimed to have suffered multiple fractures and grievous injuries. He was stated to have been shifted to Pulivendula and treated in Y.S.Raja Reddy hospital and then at Puttur as well as in the nursing home of Dr.Atchuta Prasad. The appellant claimed that even after treatment, he was not in a position to attend his avocation and hence he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the owners and insurers of the jeep and the bus. While the owners of the jeep and the bus remained ex parte, the insurers contested the claim putting the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations. The insurers put the blame for the accident respectively on the driver of the other vehicle and also contended that the drivers had no valid driving licences and that the compensation claimed was excessive. The 4th respondent also contended that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger in the jeep being run for hire or reward and hence the insurer is not liable to compensate. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the enquiry, it examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that the collision between the bus and the jeep with the claimant and 14 others travelling in the jeep resulted in the death of two passengers and injuries to others. The Tribunal observed that PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.2 charge sheet probablised that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Coming to the identity of the claimant, the Tribunal observed that the name of the claimant did not find place in the First Information Report, but was mentioned only in the charge sheet. The Tribunal also observed that the names of the persons who travelled in the Jeep were clearly given in the First Information Report except that of the claimant herein and the Tribunal also further referred to the absence of examination of any person who treated the claimant at Y.S.Raja Reddy Hospital, Pulivendula or Government Hospital, Pulivendula or Dr.Purushotham Reddy. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.6 issued by Atchuta Prasad was marked which referred to a fracture of upper end of right humenus and hence the Tribunal was of the opinion that the claimant failed to prove the injuries received in the motor accident and consequently it rejected the claim and dismissed the petition without costs. The claimant is before this Court contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation with interest and costs, instead of adopting a hyper technical approach in the matter and hence he desired the grant of compensation as claimed against the 2nd respondent insurer of the bus only. Heard Sri K.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver resulted in the accident was not challenged by any party and it had become final. The liability of the owner and insurer of the bus to compensate the claimant for any injuries sustained in the accident and their consequences cannot, therefore, be in doubt. However what the Tribunal doubted was about the proof of the claimant sustaining any such injuries in the accident. Ex.A.1 First Information Report did not refer to the name of the claimant as described in the claim petition and the deposition before the Tribunal, but Ex.A.1 referred to one “Kuruva Chentanna gari Peddanna” and this person is contended to be the appellant himself. In the claim petition and the further proceedings before the Tribunal, the name given in the First Information Report as such was stated to be alias name of the appellant. This aspect was not gone into and considered by the Tribunal, more so, when the charge sheet mentions the appellant as one of the witnesses in the criminal case and one of the persons who suffered injuries in the accident. It is true that apart from examining himself as PW.1, the appellant did not examine any person connected with Y.S.Raja Reddy Hospital or the Government Hospital, Pulivendula or Dr.Purushotham Reddy or Dr.Achuta Prasad. The medical evidence relating to the injuries suffered and the consequences that ensued was thus absent as observed by the Tribunal. But Sri K.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, desired that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce such evidence as may be necessary to establish the suffering of the injuries in the accident by him and the consequences that were further suffered by him even after treatment. As the First Information Report is also claimed to be referring to the appellant and as the charge sheet admittedly referred to him, the probability of the appellant suffering injuries in the accident cannot be considered to be non-existent and if so a reasonable opportunity has to be given to him to prove his entitlement to claim compensation through appropriate evidence. The default in not producing the relevant evidence before the Tribunal already made him suffer an adverse order from the Tribunal and the expense and time involved in preferring this appeal and, therefore, the claimant should be given a reasonable opportunity to go back to the Tribunal to prove his entitlement to just and adequate compensation, in view of the finding that it was the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver that resulted in the accident. Hence, the award dated 19.07.2002 in O.P.No.134 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Additional District Judge, Anantapur is set aside and the said O.P.No.134 of 1996 is remanded back to the Tribunal for determination of issues 2 and 3 framed by the Tribunal, while confirming the finding of the Tribunal in respect of Issue No.1. In so determining issues 2 and 3 in accordance with law, the Tribunal shall give every reasonable opportunity to the appellant-claimant and the 2nd respondent to produce any oral or documentary evidence, which they wish to produce in this regard. The claim shall be determined on merits as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 15th March, 2011. PNV