THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3669 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 28.07.1997 in M.O.P. No. 278 of 1992 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: That on 4.12.1991, the deceased, who was the claimant-injured initially died in motor vehicle accident, while he along with another was proceeding on a bicycle near Mahalakshmi theatre at Malkapuram, the accident lorry bearing No. ADJ 3465 being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their bicycle causing death of one of them and injuries to claimant- Yellapu Veerinaidu, who is husband of the second claimant and father of the third claimant. Initially, the injured Veerinaidu filed a claim petition claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries suffered by him for the said accident. That since he died during pendency of the O.P., his wife and daughter came on record as L.Rs vide orders dated 9.11.1995 in I.A.No.2487 of 1995. They also filed I.A.No.1242 of 1996 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. However, after conclusion of the trial in the O.P., the lower Tribunal found that the injuries suffered by the claimant, in the absence of medical evidence, could not be said to have caused his death. Therefore, it came to the conclusion that in the absence of evidence medical or otherwise, it could not be said that the claimant-Veerinaidu died on account of the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal found that he received injuries in the accident due to which he suffered 30% disability. However, while answering Issue No.1, as to whether the accident had taken place that resulted in causing the injuries to the claimant-injured due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ADJ 3465 by respondent No.1, gave a finding that the accident did not take place on account of the fault on the part of the respondent No.1-lorry driver and answered the Issue No.1 accordingly. 4. The lower Tribunal while stating in its award at Para 8 as to the examination of witnesses and marking documents, has referred to Ex.A.7- certified copy of the order in O.P.No.49 of 1992 on its own file, but however, the lower Tribunal has failed to take the said exhibit into consideration while answering Issue No.1 as to the fault on the part of respondent No.1- lorry driver. Though, O.P.No.49 of 1992 arising out of the same accident regarding which crime No.45/91 was registered by the Malkapuram P.S., the same Tribunal had tried the said O.P. giving a finding as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-lorry driver. It has specifically recorded in the said O.P. while accepting the evidence of PW.2 therein that since the evidence of PW.2 is not rebutted by examining the first respondent, driver of the vehicle and since there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle, it is obvious that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent.. However, the lower Tribunal came to contrary finding in this O.P.(M.O.P.No.278 of 1992) as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1- lorry driver. 5. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants submits that the matter may be remitted back to the lower Tribunal for reconsideration in view of Ex.A7-certified copy of the order in O.P.No.49 of 1992 on its own file. 6. This court finds reasonable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and finds it appropriate to remand the matter back to the lower Tribunal for deciding the same afresh. 7. In the result, the C.M.A. is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the lower Tribunal for disposal afresh. The lower Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible as it pertains to the year 1992. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 23-07-2010 Note: The Registry is directed to send the record to the lower Tribunal within a period of two weeks. B/o.Stp