Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 206 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. RUBDHA DEVI

2013-04-01

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.2013 passed by learned MACT-II, Shimla in MAC No. 48-S/2 of 2008 closing the evidence of the petitioner. 2. The evidence of the petitioner was earlier closed by the learned Tribunal on 19.6.2012. The petitioner assailed the order dated 19.6.2012 in CMPMO No. 362 of 2012. On 4.1.2013 the following order was passed by this Court: "This petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, closing the evidence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is now to examine only Licensing Authority, Agra, before the Tribunal. The steps were taken for summoning the Licensing Authority, but despite that the learned Tribunal has closed the evidence. 2. I have gone through the impugned order. It appears the petitioner took steps late for summoning the Licensing Authority and, therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the petitioner to summon the Licensing Authority, Agra and, in these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, on 10.01.2013. On that date, the learned Tribunal shall fix actual date for summoning the Licensing Authority, Agra. The petitioner shall take the steps within the stipulated time as fixed by the learned Tribunal for summoning the Licensing Authority, Agra. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application." It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petition was taken up by the learned Tribunal on 10.1.2013 and fixed the petition for the evidence of the petitioner on 2.3.2013. I have gone through the order dated 2.3.2013. On 2.3.2013 no witness of the petitioner was present. It appears, the petitioner took steps for summoning the witness on 22.2.2013 and for that reason, it was not possible to serve the witness at Agra before 2.3.2013. 3. It has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has earlier granted five opportunities to the petitioner for leading evidence and ultimately the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 19.6.2012. This Court as an indulgence granted one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the order dated 19.6.2012 of the Tribunal. 3. It has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has earlier granted five opportunities to the petitioner for leading evidence and ultimately the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 19.6.2012. This Court as an indulgence granted one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the order dated 19.6.2012 of the Tribunal. The petitioner again did not take steps at an early date for summoning the witness for 2.3.2013. 4. It appears the petitioner is not interested in early decision of the petition and the petitioner intends to delay the just decision in the petition. It has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition is pending before the learned Tribunal since the year 2008. No case for interference has been made out. There is no error of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. CMP No. 352 of 2013 is also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition. Petition is dismissed.