Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13491
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5984 OF 2018 Between:
1. Mondi Veera Raghava@ Veera Raghavamma W/o Late Krishna Rao, Aged about 52 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o D.No. 8-136/14, Gokavaram Village and Mandal, 2. Month Venkata Satya Durga Prasad S/o Late Krishna Rao, Agedabout 41 years, Hindu, R/o R/o D.No. 8-136/14, Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.
3. Mondi Venkata Appa Rao S/o Late Krishna Rao, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, R/o R/o D.No. 8-136/14, Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.
4. Emandi Anantha Lakshmi W/o Simhachalam, Aged about 34 years, Hindu, R/o D.No. 4-305, Tadithota, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Bathina Appa Rao S/o Pydiyya, Aged about 53 years, Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37 X 5799, R/o P and T colony, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District
5. Kadimi Venkateswara Rao S/o Laxmaiah Lorry bearing Aged about 48 years, Hindu, Ower of No. AP 37 X 5799, Rio Navabpalem, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
6. Manchala V.V. Naga Satyanarayana S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 44 years, Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 37 X 5799, R/oavabpalem, Tadepalligudem Mandal, WestN Godavari District.
7. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Represented by its General Manager, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5984 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard Sri I. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners/petitioners.
2. The matter has been coming up today to find out whether the notice was served on the 1st respondent or not.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners endorsed on the record that the 1st respondent is not a necessary party and notice be dispensed with for the 1st respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed against the 1st respondent. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed as against the 1st respondent as requested by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Perused the material on record.
5. In M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, a claim for compensation was moved by the petitioners with reference to the death of one of their family members. The trial commenced and after recording the evidence of P.W.1, at request of learned counsel for the claimants, further evidence was closed. However, thereafter, there was change of idea and the claimants intended to adduce the evidence of an eye witness in the form of P.W.2 and moved I.A.No.808 of 2018, seeking permission to produce further evidence. The Tribunal positively considered it and allowed the application by an order dated 06.09.2018. While allowing this application, the Tribunal imposed two conditions, viz., one, the claimants were directed to pay Rs.200/- as costs to the respondents and the other condition was the claimants should tender the evidence of P.W.2 on 27.09.2018.
6. The proceedings before the Tribunal indicate that the costs were paid. However, the witness was not produced. It is in that view of the matter, for failure of tendering the witness on the particular day, learned Tribunal recorded that the order in I.A.No.808 of 2018 is automatic and therefore, the said application stood dismissed.
7. It is in these circumstances, the claimants moved I.A.No.979 of 2018 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer for re-opening the petitioners’ side evidence and permitting them to produce the evidence of P.W.2. The sworn affidavit of Mondi Veera Raghava @
Veeraraghavamm, filed in support of that application indicates that it was out of misfortune that P.W.2 could not be tendered before the Court on 27.09.2018 and due to non- appearance of P.W.2, the Tribunal closed the further evidence on claimants’ side. This application was considered by the Tribunal and dismissed the same observing that the petitioners cannot ask to their tunes and file successive petitions and that there are no merits in the application. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
8. Despite notices, none contested in this revision petition. 9. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners indicates the following:
i. Because of the heavy rain in the village, P.W.2 could not appear on the date directed by the Tribunal for recording the evidence.
ii. This being a claim application for compensation in the motor vehicle accidents, welfare of the claimants may be taken into consideration.
iii. Prayer could be granted after mulcting the parties with sufficient costs.
10. Having considered all these submissions and finding merit in it, the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay Rs.1000/- as costs to the Legal Services Authority for wasting the public time and Rs.1000/- as costs to the contesting respondents. The time for compliance of the payment of the aforesaid costs is on or before 31.08.2023.
11. If these conditions are complied with before the Tribunal, the order in I.A.No.979 of 2018 stands set aside and the said application stands allowed and the claimants are permitted to tender the evidence of P.W.2.
12. If these conditions are not complied with before the Tribunal, the order in I.A.No.979 of 2018 continuous to hold good. It is made clear
