THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2053 of 2002 J U D G M E N T: This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.03.1995 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 114 of 1994 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- District Judge, Guntur filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of Thota Malleswararao (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The deceased was working as a Cleaner of lorry bearing No. ABK 7747. On 10.01.1994, the said lorry was driven by the 4th respondent from Piduguralla to Koduru, and when the lorry reached to a certain distance, the tyre punctured. When the deceased was attending to the work of the lorry, another lorry bearing No. ATN 1134 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the stationed lorry i.e. ABK 7747 from its back, as a result, the deceased who was underneath the lorry was crushed by the tyres of the lorry and received grievous injuries. Thereafter, while undergoing treatment, he was succumbed to the injuries. The 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent Insurance companies filed their written statements, wherein, the dependency of the petitioners on the deceased was disputed. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether Thota Malleswara Rao died in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of 1) open goods vehicle (lorry) No. ATN 1134, and 2) open goods vehicles (Ashok Leyland Lorry) No. ABK 7747 near Perecherla (Guntur Mandal) 4 K.Ms. from Medikondur P.S. on 10.01.1994 at 10.00 p.m.? (2) Whether the vehicles were insured with the 3rd respondent and 5th respondent and was valid from the date of accident? (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent (4) To what relief? During the course of trial, on behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the entire material available on record, both oral and documentary, awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation under the no fault liability in equal parts to respondents 1 and 3 on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of petition fill the date of payment with proportionate costs. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the order under appeal prima facie shows that the Tribunal has answered Issue No.1 only out of three issues framed for its consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration of the other issues. Therefore, the order, dated 14.03.1995 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 114 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Guntur is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the O.P., within a period of three months from today. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK