The Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Civil Revision Petition Nos.4745 & 4796 of 2009 Date: 20th August, 2010 Common Order: In an accident, which occurred on 16-02-2005, two persons viz., T.Ram Reddy and C.Sudhakar Reddy died instantaneously. The father and sister of the deceased C.Sudhakar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed OP.No.331 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Mahabubnagar, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation against the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-M-5923 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, with which the said vehicle was insured. Having analysed the entire evidence, the Tribunal, partly allowed the OP vide order, dated 01-12- 2007, and held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. However, as OP.No.1253 of 2005, filed earlier by the father of C.Sudhakar Reddy and another, is stated to have been dismissed, the Tribunal, while directing the petitioners to produce a copy of the said judgment and decree, held that the petitioners can withdraw the compensation amount only if OP.1253 of 2005 was dismissed. In the light of the said order, the petitioners filed a copy of order, dated 07-02-2007, in OP.No.1253 of 2005 and IA Nos.1802 and 1803 of 2008 for issuance of cheques. Having perused the order, dated 07-02-2007, in OP.No.1253 of 2005, the Tribunal refused to issue cheques to the petitioners to withdraw the compensation amount. The said orders are questioned in these two Civil Revision Petitions. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. A perusal of order, dated 07-02-2007, in OP.No.1253 of 2005, goes to show that the same was filed by C.Rami Reddy i.e., petitioner No.1 herein and another person viz., Smt.Ch.Bheemamma and that the said OP was dismissed for default. In my considered view, as the said order was not passed on merits, the same would not operate as res judicata. During the course of evidence, it was recorded that petitioner No.1 viz., Rami Reddy is the father and petitioner No.2 viz., Sumathi is the sister of the deceased. When once OP.No.331 of 2006 was decided on merits and the earlier OP being OP.No.1253 of 2005 was dismissed for default, in my considered opinion, the apprehensions or doubts entertained by the Tribunal are unwarranted and baseless. For the foregoing reasons, these two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the Tribunal is hereby directed to issue cheques in favour of the petitioners herein for the respective amounts of compensation, to which they are entitled to as per the decree, dated 01-12-2007, in OP.No.331 of 2006. Gopala Krishna Tamada, J Dated 20th August, 2010 lur