APHC010216422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the tenth day of August, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Civil Revision Petition Between: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, Hyderabad. The Manager, Legal Cell, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri IE, Mumbai – 400 059 (insurer of the offending vehicle) vide policy No.231` 2026 2931 5900 000 valid from 01.02.2019 to 31.01.2020. and 1. Anumala Lakshmi Kanthamma, 38 years, Occ: House Wife 2. Anumala Kishore, S/o. late Ramanjaneyulu, Occ: Student. 3. Anumala Prathap, S/o. late Ramanjaneyulu, Occ: Studying 8th guardian and next friend petitioner No.1 4. Anumala Suma, D/o. late Gopala Krishna, 5. Anumala Rangamma, W/o. late Gopala Krishna, Occ: Housewife. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the tenth day of August, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1441 of 2026 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, The Manager, Legal Cell, HDFC Ergo General Insurance floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri 400 059 (insurer of the offending vehicle) vide policy No.231` 2026 2931 5900 000 valid from 01.02.2019 to 31.01.2020. ….Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent Anumala Lakshmi Kanthamma, W/o. late Ramanjaneyulu, House Wife Anumala Kishore, S/o. late Ramanjaneyulu, Age: 19 years, Anumala Prathap, S/o. late Ramanjaneyulu, Age: 14 years, th Class, being minor rep. by her mother and ext friend petitioner No.1. Anumala Suma, D/o. late Gopala Krishna, Age: 23 years. Anumala Rangamma, W/o. late Gopala Krishna, Age: 60 years, [3311] the tenth day of August, two thousand and twenty six HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, The Manager, Legal Cell, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Kurla Road, Andheri - 400 059 (insurer of the offending vehicle) vide policy No.231` 2026 2931 5900 000 valid from 01.02.2019 to 31.01.2020. Respondent No.2 manjaneyulu, Age: 19 years, 14 years, Class, being minor rep. by her mother and 60 years, 2 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 1441 of 2026 (All are residents of Pamurai village, Ananthapur rural mandal, Ananthapuram) …..Respondents / Respondents / Petitioners 6. Sri Muragan Transport, rep. by its Manager, Occ: owner of lorry container bearing No.TN 52 K 4341, R/o. 3785, Kundachikadu, Unjakarai Bhavani main road, Sankari TK, Salem District, Tamilnadu state. (Owner of the offending vehicle) 7. S. Ameeth, S/o. Shaik John, Major, R/o. D. No. 259, Anna Nagar, Kowmandappatti post, Krishna Giri district, Tamilnadu state. …Respondents / Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Kesavi Kumari Nemala Counsel for the Respondents: None The Court made the following: 3 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 1441 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed aggrieved by the order, dated 18.03.2026, dismissing I. A. No. 90 of 2026 in M.V.O.P. No. 234 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:- a. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed M.V.O.P. No. 234 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (‘tribunal’), seeking compensation for the death of late Anumala Ramanjaneyulu in a motor vehicle accident involving lorry container bearing No. TN 52 – K – 4341 allegedly insured with the revision petitioner / respondent No.2 before the tribunal. b. The revision petitioner opposed the claim and took a defence that a cheque bearing No. 172165, dated 31.01.2019, drawn on State Bank of India, Sankari Branch, Tiruchengode Road, Salem District, Tamilnadu State vide bank account No.35544123413 for Rs.50,964/- issued by the respondent No.3 before the tribunal, i.e., respondent No.7 herein was returned unpaid with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and thereupon, the policy was cancelled for non-payment of premium amount duly informing the same to the insured / owner of the vehicle. 3. 3. To establish its defence, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 90 of 2026 under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C, to summon the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sankari Branch (00994), Tiruchengode Road, Salem District, to produce the original account opening book / register relating to the account No.35544123413 of their branch, belonging to 4 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 1441 of 2026 their bank’s customer by name, Sri Murugan Transport (Lorry Container bearing Registration No.TN -52-K-4231) and also the cheque book issued to the said Sri Murugan Transport, with the particulars of the cheque leaves, including the cheque No.172165, and to give evidence with respect to the cheque bearing No.172165, dated 31.01.2019, drawn on State Bank of India, Sankari Branch, Tiruchengode Road, Sankari, Salem District, Tamilnadu State, vide bank account No.3544123413, for Rs.50,964/- to “H.D.F.C. Ergo, General Insurance Company Limited” as to whether it was honoured or not, and if refused. 4. The respondent / claimant reported no counter. However, the tribunal dismissed the petition observing that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the remedy to take a certified copy or any information from the bank in respect of the original account opening book and that without explaining how the bank is in the custody of the cheque book issued to its customer, the same was sought to be produced. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Insofar as the cheque book is concerned, the original cheque book will not be available with the banker, but details regarding opening of the account and issuance of any number of cheques to the customer will be available with the banker. As can be understood from the relief sought, the petitioner seeks details regarding issuance of the cheque book particularly with reference to cheque bearing No.172165 and further details regarding its return. 7. Though the petitioner may be able to secure the certified copy of certain records, to test their veracity, it may be required to again summon the concerned authority to give evidence of the same, otherwise, if the documents produced are denied, there will not be any 5 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 1441 of 2026 opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same and moreover, the other side also may not have a chance for cross-examination on the subject. Therefore, in the present case, summoning the concerned for production of the registers relating to opening of the account of the customer with the above-mentioned number and the details relating to issuance of cheques, particularly with reference to cheque bearing No. 171265 and its consequential return can be ordered. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order, dated 18.03.2026, passed in I.A. No. 90 of 2026 in M. V. O. P. No. 234 of 2019 is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 90 of 2026 is allowed directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sankari Branch, Tiruchengode Road, Salem District, Tamilnadu State, to produce or depute a person dealing with the records to produce the record relating to opening of the account bearing No.3544123413 of Sri Murugan Transport and the record relating to the details regarding the issuance of cheques to Sri Murugan Transport, particularly with reference to the cheque bearing No. 172165, dated 31.01.2019, and its return with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and to give evidence with regard to the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 10.08.2026 RAR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No