IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN CRP.NOs. 526, 527, 530 & 560 OF 2011. Between: CRP.No. 526 of 2011. Narmala Parshu Ramulu … Petitioner-Claimant V/s. V. Srinivas & Anr. … Respondents- Respondents Between: CRP.No. 527 of 2011. Jillela Sudershan Reddy … Petitioner-Claimant V/s. V. Srinivas & Anr. … Respondents- Respondents Between: CRP.No. 530 of 2011. Smt.Pambala Yellavva … Petitioner-Claimant V/s. V. Srinivas & Anr. … Respondents- Respondents Between: CRP.No.560 of 2011. P. Swamy … Petitioner-Claimant V/s. V. Srinivas & Anr. … Respondents- Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Y.S.Yellanand Gupta Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi The Court made the following : (Common Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRP.Nos. 526, 527, 530 & 560 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : Heard Sri Y.S Yellanand Gupta, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi for Respondent No.2- National Insurance Company Limited. With the consent of both the learned counsel, these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. CRP.No. 526 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27-1- 2011 passed in I.A.No. 21 of 2011 in OP.No. 298 of 2009 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen and adduce further evidence of the petitioner 3. CRP.No. 527 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27-1- 2011 passed in I.A.No. 20 of 2011 in OP.No. 297 of 2009 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen and adduce further evidence of the petitioner. 4. CRP.No. 530 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27-1- 2011 passed in I.A.No. 19 of 2011 in OP.No. 286 of 2009 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen and adduce further evidence of the petitioner. 5. CRP.No. 560 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27-1- 2011 passed in I.A.No. 18 of 2011 in OP.No. 285 of 2009 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen and adduce further evidence of the petitioner. 6. All these Cases before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamareddy arise out of the same accident and the issue involved for determination in these Civil Revisions is also common and between the same parties, therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order. 7. The Orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions is in relation to the interlocutory applications for re-opening the petitioners case to enable them to adduce further evidence. The petitioners furnished the cover note number of the offending vehicle before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamareddy and thereafter issued notice to the second respondent to produce certain documents to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident is having valid coverage of Insurance at the time of accident. The second respondent in response thereto sent a reply stating that the cover note numbers are not correct and the petitioners are not supposed to call for the entire records from the Branch of the Insurance Company. Subsequently it appears that the petitioners issued notice to the financier of the offending vehicle, calling upon him to produce documents relating to the said vehicle. The petitioners stated the same in the petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners is that the financier sent a reply stating that only he will produce the documents in the event they are summoned by the Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners unless they are summoned, the petitioners will be deprived of establishing the fact of the offending vehicle being insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitions were filed after closure of the evidence and that the petitioners did not furnish any document enabling the court to come to a decision whether there are any valid grounds to reopen the cases for the purpose of affording opportunity to the petitioners to adduce further evidence. 9. Since it is the contention of the Revision Petitioners that all the relevant documents are in the custody of the financier, unless the documents are summoned they will not be able to establish their case and the fact that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent at the relevant point of time, it would have been appropriate on the part of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to allow the petitions filed by the Revision Petitioners. Normally, in Motor Accident Claims, it would be difficult for the claimants to obtain insurance particulars of the vehicle and the Claims Tribunal has to afford them sufficient and reasonable opportunity to prove their case, more particularly in relation to the fact of the offending vehicle being insured with the respondent- Insurance Company, other wise, it will be very difficult for the Revision Petitioners to establish their case. 10. The orders passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in disallowing the petitions filed by the Revision Petitioners to reopen their evidence is illegal and are liable to be set aside in all these Civil Revision Petitions. The order dated 27-1-2011 passed in I.A.No. 21 of 2011 in OP.No. 298 of 2009, I.A.No. 20 of 2011 in OP.No. 297 of 2009, I.A.No. 19 of 2011 in OP.No. 286 of 2009 and I.A.No. 18 of 2011 in OP.No. 285 of 2009 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district are hereby set aside and the case is reopened for the purpose of enabling the Revision Petitioners to adduce further evidence. 11. These Civil Revision Petitions, are therefore, allowed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 22-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRP.Nos. 526, 527, 530 AND 560 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER Circulation No. Date: 22-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43