THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 2164 OF 2007 Date of order: 27.7.2010 Between: V. Krishnamma …Appellant and G. Krishnaiah and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 2164 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant who is aggrieved by the order of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 3.7.2007 in OP No. 1970 of 2005 in so far as it relates to dismissal of her claim petition against the second respondent-insurance company. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition against the respondents 1 and 2 seeking compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident. On issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, based on motor vehicle Inspector’s report-Ex.,A6 and with regard to issue No.2, though the second respondent-insurance company disputed the liability, no evidence was led on their behalf in spite of giving several opportunities. The claimant also has failed to establish that the offending tractor was insured with the second respondent-insurance company. The Tribunal, however, assessed the income of the deceased who was aged 55 years, and quantified the compensation after deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying appropriate multiplier of ‘11’. The loss of dependency was worked out to Rs.2,64,400/-, to which Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium were added. Accordingly the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,73,500/- which was directed to be paid by the first respondent and dismissed the claim petition against the second respondent-insurance. Against this dismissal, the present appeal is filed. Heard both sides. In this appeal an application has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vide MA CMAMP No. 6160 of 2009 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to produce a copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that a copy of insurance policy was sought to be produced by the second respondent-insurance company before the Tribunal along with a list of document and it was served on the claimant on 18.6.2007 and the very same document is now produced by the claimant for reception as additional evidence on the ground that the second respondent ultimately did not produce the said document after serving a copy thereof on the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that but for the said copy of the insurance policy, the claim petition against the second respondent-insurance would not have been dismissed by the Tribunal and as such there is sufficient cause for non-production of the said document especially when the claimant cannot be the custodian of the said document which is basically the document of the second respondent and it is for them to produce the same. I have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that the second respondent has taken various defences including the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence and though several opportunities were given to the second respondent for leading evidence, no evidence was led by them. The insurance policy undoubtedly is a document which would be in the custody of owner/driver of the offending vehicle or insurance company, but the claimant would not have its custody or access thereto. Since the existence of the insurance policy as well as attempt made by the insurance company to produce the copy of insurance policy before the Tribunal, is not in controversy, and in view of the fact that sufficient cause was shown by the appellant/claimant for not producing the said document earlier, and in the interest of justice, MA CMA MP No. 6160 of 2009 is allowed and the insurance policy is received as additional evidence. Consequently OP No. 1970 of 2005 is required to be considered afresh by the Tribunal in the light of the said document. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and OP No. 1970 of 2005 is remitted to the learned II-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to lead further evidence, if any, in the light of the insurance policy having been received as additional evidence. Since the OP is of the year 2005, the learned Judge shall endeavor to dispose of the OP within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 27.7.2010 KR