HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3206 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.904 of 1999 vide order dated 04-09-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Claimants, appellants, are parents of the deceased M. Shyam Kumar. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal: 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 17-02-1998 at about 11-00 PM, while the deceased was returning home on motor cycle bearing No.AP7 – C – 8479, at B.G. Road, near New Garden Bar, lorry bearing No.KA-04-6859 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident in question took place on 17-2-1998 at about 11 am due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KA 04 6859 by its driver causing death of the deceased M. Shyam Kumar ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, for the death the deceased, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, father of the deceased got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking insurance policy of the offending lorry as Ex.B-1 with the consent of the claimants, no oral evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, holding that no eyewitness was examined to speak about the accident and that rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accident itself are not proved, Tribunal awarded a statutory compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under no fault liability against all the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Since none of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 10. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inappropriate ? 11. The counsel, who appeared for the claimants before the Tribunal, has not properly conducted the case and on account of his negligence, no eye witness to the accident was examined and due to that reason, claimants were awarded only Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability by the Tribunal. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for remanding the matter for disposal afresh. 12. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal directing it to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence and dispose of the same afresh within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the claimants are not entitled to interest on the compensation, if any, from the date of remand of the matter by this Court till its fresh disposal by the Tribunal. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 23, 2010. NOTE: 1. Dispatch the judgment forthwith. 2. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court concerned forthwith. (B/O) PV