HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.751 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners filed MV OP No.178 of 2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal, against the respondents, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Subba Reddy, the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd petitioner and son of the 3rd petitioner. According to them, on 03-12-2008 while Subba Reddy was crossing the road NH-18 near Balapanurmetta village at about 10.00 pm., the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 21 H 6746 coming from Panyam side dashed him, due to which he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The Motorcycle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the matter was being contested by the 2nd respondent alone. 2. The petitioners closed their evidence, but at a subsequent stage, filed I.A. No.31 of 2010 with a prayer to summon the 1st respondent to depose as a witness, as the 2nd respondent disputing the very occurrence of the accident. It is stated that the 1st respondent did not figure as a witness and it became necessary for them to take summons to him. The Tribunal dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 31-01-2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. None appears for the 1st respondent. 4. The effort of the petitioners is to establish the factum of occurrence of the accident, for which the evidence of the 1st respondent is necessary. This is not a case where the petitioners failed to cross-examine the 1st respondent. 5. The Tribunal observed that the petitioners closed their evidence and have filed the application to summon the 1st respondent. The question of the petitioners taking steps to summon the 1st respondent in the course of their evidence does not arise. The plaintiffs or petitioners in a set of proceedings have to wait till the respondents appear as witnesses. That eventuality can take place only after closure of their evidence. Once, it emerges that the 1st respondent is not forthcoming; the petitioners filed the present application. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No.31 of 2010 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 15, 2011. KTL