THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.NO.263 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment dated 30.09.1999 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.1011 of 1996 in reducing the quantum as determined by the Court below and also dismissing the review petition filed by her. In brief, the facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant is an injured person in a motor accident that occurred on 09.09.1991. On the date of the incident, while she was going by walk near Raghavendra Swamy Temply at Lingampally Cross Roads, a scooter belonging to the first respondent herein came from behind and dashed her due to which she sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she filed O.P.No.1454 of 1991 on the file of the Chairman (Additional Chief Judge), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, for compensation. The owner of the scooter and the Insurance Company contested the said O.P. After holding enquiry, having considered the evidence available on record, the Court below fixed the compensation at Rs.70,400/-. Against the said order, the owner of the scooter, which is involved in the accident, filed C.M.A.No.1011 of 1996. The Insurance Company did not file any appeal. In the said appeal, the appellant did not appear and accordingly, the matter was taken up and the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said appeal reducing the compensation from Rs.70,400/- to Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. The main ground urged in this appeal is that since there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, the matter remained unrebutted and for the purpose of determination of correct quantum, to which the claimant would be entitled, it is necessary that an opportunity should have been given to the appellant. There is no serious dispute in regard to the fact that the appellant did not appear in the appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the appellant. Accordingly, the L.P.A. is allowed and the judgment dated 30.09.1999 in C.M.A.No.1011 of 1996 is set aside. The matter is remitted back for the purpose of fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. No costs. Office is directed to post the C.M.A. “For Hearing” before the regular Court hearing the matters. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 9th February 2011 RRB