HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1414 OF 1999 and C.M.A.NO. 1089 of 2008 Dated: 30.03.2010 C.M.A.NO.1414 OF 1999 BETWEEN Neelapu Jhansi Rani .. Appellant And Syed Maden and another .. Respondents C.M.A.NO.1089 OF 2008 BETWEEN Neelapu Jhansi Rani .. Appellant And Syed Maden and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1414 OF 1999 and C.M.A.NO. 1089 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the accident, dated 20.01.1991 in which the appellants/injured claimants received injuries. 2. The petitioner in O.P.No.610 of 1991 is the father of the appellant in C.M.A.No.1089 of 2008 and the petitioner in O.P.No.609 of 1991 filed C.M.A.No.1414 of 1999 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 20.01.1991. The learned Tribunal conducted enquiry jointly into both the original petitions and passed a common award, dated 24.11.1998 dismissing the claims on the ground that the appellants were not able to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.AP 31 A 8633 by the first respondent and that they also failed to establish that the alleged offending vehicle i.e. Bajaj scooter bearing No.AP 31 A 8633 was validly insured with the second respondent-insurance company on the date of accident. Consequently, the learned Tribunal below did not at all go in to the question of quantum of compensation and dismissed the claim at the threshold holding as mentioned above. 2. Both the afore-mentioned findings were put to challenge by the appellants separately in two appeals. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company. 4. As regards the finding that the appellants failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing No. AP 31 A 8633 by RW1, there was the evidence of PW2, the injured in the accident, and the appellant in C.M.A.No.1089 of 2008. He had categorically stated in his deposition before the trial Court that while he along with his wife and daughter of PW.1 was returning on the Luna moped AHQ 7758 and when the said vehicle reached burial ground, near Gopalapatnam , first respondent-scooterist came driving the scooter bearing No. AP 31 A 8633 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the luna moped, due to which they fell down from the luna moped and received injuries. This is the version of the appellants in both the claim petitions and the same is substantiated by PW.2. 5. Curiously, the learned Tribunal held that since there is no independent evidence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be taken in to consideration which in the opinion of this Court is wholly misconceived. 6. As regards the liability of respondent No.2-insurance company, the learned Tribunal further held erroneously that there is no person by name Syed Madar (respondent No.1), even though, the copy of the policy of insurance filed by the second respondent – insurance company discloses that the said policy stands in the name of Syed Madar, Assistant Engineer, Auto Port Trust. However, in the policy which was newly issued engine number and chasis number were mentioned. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit hat the policy relates to the scooter bearing No. AP 31 A 8633 which is the offending vehicle caused the accident on 20.01.1991. As seen from the policy, it is valid from 28.03.1990 to 27.03.1991. The learned Tribunal further erroneously recorded a finding that there is no valid policy on the date of accident. 7. Since there is no finding as to the quantum of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by both the appellants, this Court is inclined to remand the matter for disposal by the Tribunal itself after recording further evidence if any adduced by parties. The findings of fact by the Tribunal recorded without examining the evidence on record before it. The said findings are liable to be set aside in this appeal. This Court, thinks it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal below with a direction to record findings on all issues rather to proceed to render judgments on all the issues in the appeal itself without there being any initial adjudication by the Tribunal. However, this Court wants to make it clear that the Tribunal has to record findings on all the issues independently with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence and afford opportunity to both parties to adduce any further evidence and also without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeals and those observations are only limited for the purpose of disposing of these appeals. 8. Consequently, the common award, dated 24.11.1998 passed in O.P.No.609 of 1991 and O.P.No.610 of 1991 is set aside. The matters are remitted to the Tribunal below with the above direction to record findings on all the issues. The Tribunal below shall dispose of both the original petitions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 30.03.2010 Kvrm