UDANRAO ANJAIAH CHINNA RAMAIAH Vs. SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. arises under a peculiar set of facts. One Smt. Udan Rao Padmamma died at Maneguda Village of Ranga Reddy District, on 12.11.2002, when she was hit by a vehicle bearing No. AP 22E 666 owned by the deceased first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Her husband and children, appellants 1 to 5 herein, filed O.P.No.123 of 2003 before the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vikarabad, claiming an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, as compensation. On an advise tendered to the appellants, they have also filed O.P.No.749 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming amount in respect of the same cause of action.

(2.) The appellants filed a memo, dated 17.09.2004, before the Tribunal at Vikarabad seeking permission to withdraw O.P.No.123 of 2003. Even when the memo was pending, O.P.No.749 of 2003 came up for trial before the Tribunal at Hyderabad. When the Tribunal was informed that O.P.No.123 of 2003 was also pending, it expressed the view that the said O.P., which was filed earlier point of time, must be proceeded with, and the latter must be withdrawn. It was in this context that the appellants have withdrawn O.P.No.749 of 2003 from the Tribunal at Hyderabad. O.P.No.123 of 2003 came up for trial and hearing before the Tribunal at Vikarabad. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the appellants and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the second respondent. Arguments were addressed at the final hearing. The Tribunal, in fact, passed a detailed order dealing with all the contentions and took the view that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.1,500/-, per month, and that her age as on the date of her death was 35 years. The contention of the appellants that the award need not be restricted to Rs.2,50,000/-, claimed by them, was also noted. Thereafter, the Tribunal switched over the; discussion on the memo filed by the appellants on 17.09.2004. Without taking the subsequent developments, i.e. withdrawal of O.P.No.749 of 2003, it dismissed the O.P., acting upon the said memo. The appellants challenge the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view of the matter and once it has emerged that one of the O.Ps. filed by the appellants was already dismissed as withdrawn, there was no basis for it to act on the memo.