THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2118 of 2010 and M.A.C.M.A.No.723 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Sitaram, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 passed in O.P.No.372 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), allowing partly their claim filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation on account of death of Allam Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 29.07.2006. The undisputed facts are that on the fateful day, the deceased went to Gandhi Road, Karimnagar to see his lorries, which were parked at Gandhi Road and while he was coming by walk by the side of the road, the offending vehicle – lorry bearing No.ADB 7097, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained injuries to his chest and abdomen and he was taken to Surya Nursing Home, where he was referred to Hyderabad and he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and was treated as inpatient from 30.07.2006 to 26.08.2006 and he died while undergoing treatment. Therefore, the dependents of the deceased filed the claim petition. The Police have also registered Crime No.644 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.97 of 2006 under Section 337 I.P.C. The claim of the appellants/claimants was contested by the owner as well as insurance company. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether pleaded accident occurred resulting the death of the deceased and if so was it due to the fault of driver of the lorry bearing No.ADB 7097? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the lorry in question belongs to second respondent and stood insured with third respondent/insurance company by the date of the accident and if so whether the policy covers risk of the deceased? 4. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to compensation and if so what amount and from which of the respondents? 5. To what relief? Thereafter, during the course of trial, the appellants/claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however Ex.B-1 - copy of the insurance company was marked. The Tribunal, after taking into account the entire material on record, allowed the O.P. in part holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,72,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum. However, the claim as far as respondent No.1 – driver and respondent No.3 – insurance company are concerned, was dismissed mainly on the ground that insurance policy did not cover the day of the accident. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application – M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2118 of 2010 purportedly under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(B) C.P.C. seeking to adduce additional evidence - insurance policy pertaining to the period from 29.03.2006 to 28.03.2007 which includes the date of the accident i.e., 29.07.2006, by marking the same as Ex.A-14. The case of the appellants is that having regard to such subsisting insurance policy of the relevant period, the question of discharging the liability of the insurance company does not arise and such discharge is wholly unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed fastening the liability on the insurance company. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the existence of such insurance policy. However, the said policy was not produced before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, an opportunity needs to be given to the parties in this regard and the matter requires reconsideration and trial with regard to the liability against the insurance company. Since there is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy covering the day of the accident, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2118 of 2010 is allowed and the insurance policy is taken as evidence. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 in O.P.No.372 of 2007 and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, trial and disposal, after giving notice and opportunity to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 07th December, 2010 _____________________ (V. SURI APPA RAO, J) GHN