THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.1930 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.306 of 2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been received by him on 31.03.1997 in an accident involving a vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. It is stated that he was travelling in a Jeep bearing No. AP 1C 2363 from Hyderabad to Mancherial and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, it dashed a tree on the road side and turned turtle. The nature of injuries was described and ultimately, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was claimed as compensation. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by respondent No.2 alone. The Tribunal allowed the O.P. through its order, dated 03.10.2005, and awarded a sum of Rs.48,500/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Respondent No.2 was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the appellant did not file the copy of the policy. M.A.C.M.A.No.2592 of 2006 was filed before this Court challenging the order, dated 03.10.2005. The appeal was allowed on 04.12.2006 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, since the policy was not before this Court. It was also mentioned that the Tribunal awarded compensation and held respondent No.2 liable to pay it, in an O.P. filed by another victim of the same accident. After remand, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 19.03.2009. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Ramalingeswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has proceeded on hyper-technicalities and went to the extent of ignoring the findings recorded and observations made by this Court in the judgment passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.2592 of 2006. Hardly, there is any consistency. On the one hand, it was held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and that the appellant has proved the nature of injuries received by him, and on the other, it dismissed the O.P. The perversity is at its height, when the Presiding Officer observed that the report of the Doctor, who issued the discharge card etc., does not show as to how the appellant has sustained injuries. The Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation recorded a clear finding not only as to the negligence on the part of the driver, but also as to the nature of injuries; and quantum of compensation. Obviously, because the insurance policy was not filed, it did not fasten the liability on respondent No.2. After remand, the appellant filed Ex.A8, the insurance policy, in respect of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 did not dispute the genuinity of the policy nor was it denied that in respect of the other victims of the same accident, the Tribunal awarded compensation against respondent No.2 also. The only defect that existed in the earlier round of litigation stood rectified with the filing of Ex.A8. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, O.P.No.306 of 2002 is allowed and the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.48,000/- as compensation and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.09.2010. kdl