THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4885 OF 2011 ORDER: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry Branch is the petitioner. The Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 19.08.2011 in I.A.No.887 of 2011 in O.P.No.415 of 2009, passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying the Court below to take coercive steps to ensure the attendance of respondent No.4 – Y.Suraparaju for giving evidence in the O.P. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the abovementioned O.P. under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for brevity), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Kolli Vinod Kumar in motor accident that occurred on 25.03.2009 involving the lorry bearing No.AP-26-Y-7497 allegedly insured with the petitioner. The petitioner sought to summon the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident. They contended that the owner did not inform the insurer about the accident and remained ex parte in the O.P. They also allege that when the cheque given towards premium was dishonoured, the policy was cancelled and was no more in force. The Court below rejected the application observing that it is very difficult to take coercive steps in each and every case and that when the original owner remained ex parte, no purpose would be served by summoning his son, who is present owner. This Court ordered notice to the respondents on 24.11.2011. All the respondents are served. They are called absent and none appears for them. Therefore, they are set ex parte. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute that the insurer is disputing the very accident. When the owner did not inform about the accident and remained ex parte in the original petition filed under Section 163 (A) of the Act, it would be very relevant to examine the owner. The request to summon the owner of the lorry is, therefore, justified. The owner of the lorry is no more and his son by name Y.Suraparaju is now owner of the lorry. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused by summoning the owner of the lorry, if necessary by taking such steps to ensure his attendance, in accordance with the law. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 19.08.2011 in I.A.No.887 of 2011 in O.P.No.415 of 2009 is set aside. The said I.A. shall stand allowed and the Court below shall issue orders accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23rd December 2011 RRB