JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-12-2006 passed in SR 2536 of 2006 in O.P.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. Respondents 1 to 7 herein filed O.P.No.21 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Y.Subba Rao, husband of the 1st respondent herein and father of the respondents 2 to 6 and son of respondent No.7. It is represented that R7 mother of the deceased is no more. Claimant’s initial case was that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e., tank lorry bearing No. AP 31 V 978 was insured with the 9th respondent i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited. However, the said Assurance Company filed a Memo before the lower Court stating that owner of the vehicle did not pay the required premium amount and that no policy was issued to him and it is not liable to pay compensation. Then the respondents 1 to 7 herein filed an application to implead the petitioner herein i.e., United India Insurance Company as respondent No.3 before the tribunal as the Insurance Company is responsible to pay compensation to them. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the said O.P. Then the petitioner filed I.A.S.R.No.2536 of 2006 stating inter alia that the vehicle involved in the accident had been in fact insured with the 9th respondent i.e., M/s New India Assurance Company Limited and the 9th respondent issued a policy to the owner of the vehicle vide policy No.2000/6302374 and the risk had been covered by R.9 from 31-3-2001 to 30-3-2002 and that since the accident occurred on 2-11-2001, policy issued by R.9 was in force on the date of accident and that R.9 ought to have filed (1) policy issued by the Divisional Office of New India Insurance Company Limited. (2) Premium Register from 27-1-2001 to 30-5-2001 maintained by them and therefore, the 9th respondent may be directed to produce those documents. The lower Court passed the order as follows: “Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. U/O.11 R.14 CPC confers a right to the Court to direct any party for production of a document relating to the matter before the Court. The said proviso cannot be used by any party. The lower Court passed the order as follows: “Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. U/O.11 R.14 CPC confers a right to the Court to direct any party for production of a document relating to the matter before the Court. The said proviso cannot be used by any party. Hence, the petition is rejected as not maintainable.” Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed by the petitioner Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision reported in P.MEHARUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS v. P. NOORUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS ( 2002 (3) ALT 12 ) submits that a party to a suit can approach the Court for compelling the other side to produce the document in possession of it. There is no representation for R.9. I have heard the learned counsel for R.1 to R.6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the lower Court is justified in dismissing the application. As far as the powers of the tribunals are concerned, the tribunal powers have been envisaged under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of which sub-section (1) reads as follows: “In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.” Sub-Section 2 of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: “The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery ad production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).” Sub-section 4 of 166 envisages that “the Claims Tribunals shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.” Thus it is clear that even in the absence of any claim petition a report sent as referred above under sub-section 6 of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the Act. Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages that “As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.” It is also the duty of the officer incharge of the police station or the authority registering a case, to furnish any information at the disposal of such police officer or authority to enable the claimants to file a claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunals must be alive to the object and purpose of the Act. It is the duty of the tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. The Tribunals have to follow summary procedure under Section 169 of the Act. In fact, except on certain matters, as referred above tribunals need not follow the Code of Civil Procedure. Special powers have been given to the Tribunals to deal with the accident claims with a sole object of early disposal of such cases to enable the claimants to receive the compensation as early as possible. But unfortunately, most of the Tribunals have not been considering every object of the Act and holding trials as if civil suits. Hardly, any effort is being made to dispose of those cases at an early stage to grant relief to the claimants. In fact, after the death of an earning member in a family, the members of said family and in case of inured, injured himself needs compensation at an early date to relieve themselves from the grief and troubles which had fallen upon them. Therefore, the tribunals may bestow their attention and see that that the claim petitions are disposed of as early as possible and the claimants are relieved from their miseries. By disposing such cases, we should not forget that we will be making a step forward to wipe out every tear from every eye of the suffering persons. Therefore, the tribunals may bestow their attention and see that that the claim petitions are disposed of as early as possible and the claimants are relieved from their miseries. By disposing such cases, we should not forget that we will be making a step forward to wipe out every tear from every eye of the suffering persons. Coming to the facts of this case, when there is a dispute as to the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident and when the petitioner herein which is also one of the Insurance Companies approaches the tribunal with an application seeking a direction to another Insurance Company to produce certain documents which appears to be material and necessary for the purpose of deciding the main issue of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, the Tribunal ought to have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and ought to have considered that those documents were necessary for deciding the main controversy and the tribunal ought to have considered that the matter was already pending since more than 4 years and ought to have allowed such application instead of rejecting it on a technical ground. Moreover, the reason assigned by the Tribunal is not correct and a party to a suit or any claim petition, has every right to approach a Civil Court or Tribunal under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. seeking a direction to other party for producing necessary documents. Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. reads as follows: “It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.” The above referred rule does not prevent a party from making an application for production of the documents. Of course, it is for the Court to decide as to whether such document is required or not and whether it is necessary for deciding the issue involved in the matter or not. Of course, it is for the Court to decide as to whether such document is required or not and whether it is necessary for deciding the issue involved in the matter or not. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the contention of the Insurance Company, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have exercised its power and ought to have directed the 9th respondent-Assurance Company Limited to produce those documents. In view of the same, I consider that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Revision is allowed accordingly. Consequently, I.A.S.R.No.2536 of 2006 in O.P.No.21 of 2002 stands allowed. No costs.