This batch of seven appeals are being disposed of by this common order because, though they are filed against different MVOPs before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, they arise out of same accident. The question involved in the accident is also the same. In addition to this, in all the cases except in one case, the claimants belong to one family.

The admitted as well as disputed fact of the matter is as follows. Munagala Srinivasa Rao, his wife Lakshmi, daughter Ramya, son Srikanth and nephew Satyanarayana, in all five persons, hired an ambassador car bearing No.AP 7T-6377 to go to Shirdi from Guntur. On 05.10.1998, after visiting Sainath temple at Shirdi, they started to Hyderabad in the same car. When the car reached Anamthara garden on the outskirts of Kandi village, a lorry, bearing No.C.11-7646 insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (insurer), coming in the opposite direction dashed against the car. In the accident that occurred the driver of car and son Srikanth died instantaneously. Srinivasa Rao, his wife and daughter as well as nephew allegedly received injuries. Contending that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry insured by insurer, O.P.No.1149 of 1998 was filed by father and mother of the deceased Srikanth claiming an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The other injured persons also filed different O.Ps., claiming damages for injuries. The owner of the lorry S. Rajendra Singh remained ex parte and mother of owner of the car denied negligence alleging that her son Madala Satyanarayana himself was driver-cum- owner of the car. The insurer filed written statement opposing claims. Oral and documentary evidence was let in before Tribunal which conducted separate enquiry/trial in each O.P. The dependents/injured were also examined. The doctor(s) who allegedly treated the injured was/were not examined. Wound certificates given by the doctor concerned were marked as Ex.A.3 in O.P.Nos.1151 and 1152 of 1998 and 318 of 1999. After considering oral and documentary evidence, learned Tribunal by separate orders partly allowed the claims, against which the insurer filed appeals. The dependents/injured also filed appeals claiming enhancement. Be it noted, O.P., filed by nephew of Srinivasa Rao was dismissed. The particulars of these O.Ps., and appeals filed by insurer as well as claims are as follows.

Table

Along with C.M.A.No.3169 of 2002, which is filed against O.P.No.1149 of 1998, the insurer filed C.M.P.No.21492 of 2002 under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to receive two additional documents, namely, the original policy of insurance (certificate with cancellation endorsement) and returned postal cover sent to Rajendra Singh, owner of the lorry. In support of the application, it is stated that owner of the lorry gave a cheque towards premium amount for obtaining a policy, the same was dishonoured on 12.11.1997. Therefore, the policy of insurance, dated 07.11.1997, to lorry No.C.11-7646 was cancelled. The cancellation was informed to the insured but the same was returned. When the claim was made, these facts were informed to learned advocate by the insurer, but relevant documents were not marked and nobody on behalf of insurer was examined. Due to this, important fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and additional evidence was required. The application for additional evidence was filed on 10.07.2002 in C.M.A.No.3169 of 2002 but no counter affidavit is filed opposing the same. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, additional evidence sought to be brought on record is very much necessary to enable this Court to pronounce the Judgment. The application for additional evidence being C.M.P.No.12958 of 2002 is, therefore, accepted. The policy No.198200/31/021/11/003/03755/1997, dated 07.11.1997 covering the period from 05.11.1997 to 04.11.1998 with cancellation endorsement, dated 12.11.1997 is marked as Ex.