Nanda Mallika Vs Kota Parandhama Reddy

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2651 and 2648 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:-

C.R.P.No.2651 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.C.No. 5 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole.

¶5

C.R.P.No.2648 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.C.No. 5 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole.

¶6

Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions is one and the same, this Court is of the view that these revision petitions can be disposed of by way of a common order.

¶7

For convenience of the Court, the parties are referred as referred in the revision petition.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court rejected the applications of the petitioner i.e., I.A.Nos.4 and 6 of 2024, without there being any reasons and without examining the necessity of the applications filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the trial is going on and the evidence of the respondents just completed. After completion of the evidence of the respondents/

¶10

2

¶11

defendants, the petitioner herein came to know, on perusal of the evidence of the defendants unless the Motor Vehicle Inspector is called for evidence, the fact regarding involvement of the vehicle and the cause of the death of the deceased may not come in the light. Hence, having no other option, the petitioner herein filed these applications I.A.Nos. 4 and 6 of 2024 under Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 6 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC for issuing witness summons to the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the alleged two wheeler bearing No.AP 27 BS 2760 on 15.05.2017 and submitted report stating that the said two wheeler is not at all involved in the alleged accident and also to re-open the petitioner’s/ applicants evidence to summon the Motor Vehicle Inspector to adduce his evidence on behalf of the petitioner/applicant. He further submits that the examination of the proposed witness is crucial to prove the case of the petitioner herein. But, the trial Court without considering the same and without assigning any reasons, rejected the said interlocutory applications holding that there is no provision for applicant to file claim petition against two owners of the vehicles and two insurance companies. He further submits that since the claim petition itself is filed against two owners of the vehicles and two insurance companies, the same cannot be maintainable. Accordingly, the said applications are dismissed/ rejected on the technical point but not on merits.

¶12

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material placed on record, the present applications are filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 6 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC seeking for issuance of witness summons for the proposed

¶13

3

¶14

witness as well as for reopen of the applicant’s/ petitioner’s evidence on the ground that the proposed witness shall be examined to prove the case of the petitioner. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his applications, it is evident that the husband of the petitioner died not because of the accident involving alleged lorry bearing No.AP 27 TU 4356 but due to the injuries caused to him while driving the motor vehicle bearing No. AP 27 BS 2760 driving by himself. Admittedly, a case in Crime No.40/2017 was registered under Section 304(a) of IPC in Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam District indicating the involvement of the lorry bearing No. AP 27 TU 4356. But as per the final report filed by the police reporting contra evidence the vehicle involved in accident is two wheeler i.e., AP 27 BS 2760. The said dispute can be resolved by the trial court after having due evidence from the proposed witness who would be the proper and necessary party to elucidate and clarify the dispute between the parties.

¶15

On perusal of the orders of the trial Court, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in the present revision petitions is without assigning any reasons and the trial Court proceeded on technical grounds rather than answering the contentions made in the affidavit. Therefore, it is settled principle of law that being a quasi-judicial authority, the authority shall pass orders in such applications by assigning sound reasons rather than depending upon the technical leads. Therefore, the order impugned is certainly lacks merits as well as without proper application of mind and also due reasons as required. Hence, the orders impugned are liable to be dismissed.

¶16

4

¶17

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 06.09.2025 passed in I.A.Nos. 4 and 6 of 2024 in E.C.No.05 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole. Further the trial court is directed to

¶18

reopen the evidence and proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶20

closed.

¶21

¶22

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶23

Date:06.01.2026 BSP

¶24