The main legal point established is that a court should not dismiss an application without considering the specific reasons provided by the petitioner and should not rely solely on headnotes of previous judgments without considering the factual circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner.

2. None appeared for the respondents. Admit the revision.

3. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dtd. 27/3/2015 in I.A.No.551 of 2015 in M.V.O.P.No.245 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, whereunder the Trial Court Dismissed" the application filed by the revision-petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC").

4. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner Sri Gudi Srinivasu would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and the circumstances of the cases on hand and the Judgments in Loyola Public School Society, Secunderabad vs. P.Anil Kumar and others,2008 (1) ALD 8. and B.Venkat Ram Reddy vs. K.Srinivas and others,2005 (2) ALD 735.. in a proper perspective and thereby came to a wrong conclusion, Dismissed" the application filed by the revision-petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for summoning the respondent No.4/owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle involved in the accident, to produce the Original Policy" along with payment details allegedly issued by the revisionpetitioner.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that the contention of the revision-petitioner before the Tribunal is that the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 produced a photocopy allegedly issued by the revision petitioner/insurance company, and on verification of records of the revision-petitioner, it was found that no such policy was issued by the revision-petitioner Insurance Company at any point of time for the crime vehicle, and that, no such policy was ever in existence, and in those circumstances, the revision-petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal to direct the respondent No.4/owner of the crime vehicle to produce the original policy along with payment details for a just decision in the case about the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

6. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and committed material irregularity.

7. In the light of above submissions, the point that would arise in the revision-petition is as under: -

"Whether the Tribunal committed any material irregularity in the Order, dtd. 27/3/2015 passed in I.A.No.551 of 2015 in M.V.O.P.No.245 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole?"

8. P O I N T: -

The revision-petitioner/Insurance company is the respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.245 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Ongole. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants and respondent No.4 is the owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle involved in the accident.

9. It is an admitted fact that the claimants produced a photocopy of policy, contending that the revision-petitioner/ Insurance Company issued the original of the said policy for the crime vehicle of the 4th respondent/owner cum driver, and it was in force at the time of accident. The respondent No.4 i.e., the owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle, remain ex parte before the Tribunal and he did not appear before this Court also, even after receipt of notice. The claimants 1 to 3 did not oppose the petition before the tribunal.

10. It is also an admitted fact that the contention of the revision-petitioner/Insurance Company is that the alleged policy was not issued by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the revision-petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to direct the respondent No.4/ owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle, to produce the original policy along with payment details, before the Tribunal.

11. The Tribunal relying on the Judgments of this Court in Loyola Public School Society and B.Venkat Ram Reddy cases referred supra, Dismissed" the application.

12. This Court in Loyola Public School Society ca