APHC010485332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2413/2023 Between: The New India Assurance Co.limited, ...PETITIONER AND Eda Sylvia Selivina and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2414/2023 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Limited ...PETITIONER AND Eda Vijaya Kumari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2422/2023 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Limited ...PETITIONER AND Eda Vijaya Kumari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P. Nos.2413, 2414 and 2422 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: The present revision petitions are filed questioning the common order dated 19.06.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in MVOP.Nos.653, 654 and 655 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereunder the applications seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to enable him to record the evidence of witness i.e. G.Narasimham, retired ASI of Police, the then investigation person of Kavali Rural Police Station, now residing at Nellore were dismissed. 2. Petitioner is the Insurance company. MVOP.Nos.653 and 654 of 2015 were filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each towards the injuries suffered by the claimant in an accident said to have been occurred on 23.12.2014 while the claimant and family members were proceeding from Tirupathi to Tadepalligudem in car bearing No.AP 03 BK 0110. MVOP.No.655 of 2015 was filed by the mother, wife and children of one Eda Syam Prasad Mukharji, who died in the said accident seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 4 3. The Insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim in the MVOPs. During trial, I.A.Nos.198 to 200 of 2021 were filed and the Tribunal by its common order dated 20.04.2021 partly allowed I.A.No.198 of 2021 filed to reopen the evidence of P.W.1, but dismissed I.A.No.199 of 2021 filed to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination. I.A.No.200 of 2021 filed for issuance of handover summons to the ASI of Police, SHO of Kavali; to give evidence and to produce CD file was allowed. However, the said witness could not appear before the Court as he had informed the Petitioner that his mother-in-law was on death bed and he is the only one to take care of her. 4. In that context, the above applications were filed by the Petitioner/insurance company to permit the proposed witness to be examined through an Advocate Commissioner. The applications were dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that no purpose will be served and it may not assist the Court to adjudicate the real controversy in the case. Hence, the present revision petitions. 5. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Respondents. 5 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the trial Court could not have rejected the application on the ground that no purpose will be served as earlier the very same Court found merit in the submission while allowing I.A.No.200 of 2015 to summon the proposed witness. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the witness may not be necessary and that the Petitioner is procrastinating the case by adopting delay tactics even though the MVOPs are of the year 2015. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that once the Tribunal had found merit in the contention of the Petitioner-insurance company that there is a requirement of summoning the proposed witness i.e. G.Narasimham, retired ASI of Police, for giving evidence in the case in I.A.No.200 of 2021, could not have turned back and come to a conclusion that no purpose would be served. 8. Therefore, the impugned common order is set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal shall be provided with the certified copies of the case record and the Advocate Commissioner so appointed shall conclude the recording of evidence within a period of three months from the date of appointment and no further extension of time will be 6 granted. On receipt of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the MVOPs within a period of three months thereafter as the cases pertain to the year 2015. 9. With the above directions, the civil revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.02.2025 KLP