THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2594 of 2001 J U D G M E N T: This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2001 passed in O.P. No. 1057 of 1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The facts, in brief, are as follows. Appellants 1 and 2 are parents of Sri K. Prabhakar (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’) and appellant 3 is the sister of the deceased. On 31.07.1998, at about 07.00 p.m., while the deceased was going on a scooter from Aknapur Village, near Kothagadi Daba, a lorry bearing No. ATT 3633 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, resulting which, the deceased received injuries and died. Thereafter, his wife also died. He had no children. The appellants-claimants contend that at the time of his death, the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing business and agriculture. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. In the counter filed before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent disputed the age, income of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ATT 3633 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? (3) 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 A6 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, rejected the claim of the appellants. Hence, they have filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the order under appeal prima facie shows that the appellants have failed to establish the fact that the deceased died of the injuries sustained in the motor accident. They have not produced P.M. report or inquest report, so as to prove the death of the deceased and the cause thereof. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and appropriate if an opportunity is given to the appellants, to adduce evidence in support of their plea that the deceased died of the injuries in the motor accident. Therefore, the order, dated 12.03.2001 passed in O.P.No. 1057 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar 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, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their pleas. 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