THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.924 of 2003 Date: 08-7-2010 Between Nellikuduru Nagamma and another … Appellants/Claimants and 1. N.Yadaiah and another … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.924 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2-insurer. 2. The claim against respondent No.1-owner of lorry bearing No.ADB-6449 was dismissed for default vide order of this court dated 28-01-2010. 3. Heard Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. 4. Appeal by the claimants challenging the order and decree, dated 27-8-2002, in M.V.O.P.No.775 of 2000, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool district rejecting the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of their son Harichandrudu who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23-4-1999 at about 2 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. 5. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased who died in the accident was their son but no evidence was adduced in order to prove the accident. There is total failure on the part of the claimants to establish the identity of the deceased as their son. The inquest report, post-mortem certificate etc., were marked besides being examined P.Ws.1 and 2 but from the said documentary evidence or oral evidence, it is impossible to make out that the deceased was the son of the claimants. 6. It has been noted by the Tribunal that however, there is evidence on record to the effect that during the course of inquest on the body of the deceased they found one certificate, on which the name of one Narasimham was found and upon enquiry, the said Narasimham had revealed that the deceased was the son of the claimants. 7. But, most unfortunately, the trial of the case was conducted before the Tribunal so badly that no care had been taken on behalf of the claimants to examine the said Narasimham in order to establish the identity of the person as the deceased. It is only the said Narasimham who can speak about the identity of the deceased. So long as that identity is established, this court cannot find fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the identity of the deceased was not proved and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any relief. 8. But, I am of the view that the Statute is a beneficial piece of legislation and justice cannot be denied on this kind of inadequate evidence on record, particularly when there is possibility to establish the identity of the deceased. 9. Therefore, in view of the fact recorded by the Tribunal that the said Narasimham was the only person who can speak about the identity of the deceased and he was not examined, I am of the view that the matter is desirable to be remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, particularly taking into account the evidence of the said Narasimham by adducing any other oral or documentary evidence satisfactory to the Tribunal, which throws some light on the identity of the deceased and retrial the case. This is only an opportunity given to the claimants to establish their claim that the deceased was their son. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of evidence with regard to the identity of the deceased. The Tribunal can place reliance on the other material that is already available on record. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 08th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.924 of 2003 08th July, 2010. (Ak)