Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1546 (HP)

Girja Nand v. Sumeer Kashypa

2015-10-16

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Sing Chauhan, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, H.P. on 20.7.2015, whereby evidence of the petitioner came to be closed. 2. Issues in this case were framed on 6.1.2015 and thereafter the matter was ordered to be listed for the evidence of the petitioner on 2.5.2015. On 2.5.2015, no witnesses were present and on that very day, petitioner was directed to produce his evidence on self responsibility on 5.6.2015. On 4.6.2015, no witness was present and the matter was adjourned to 20.7.2015 for recording the statements of PWs to be produced on self responsibility. On 20.7.2015, two witnesses were present and examined, but since the other witness sought to be examined by the petitioner were not present, therefore, the learned Tribunal declined to grant any further opportunities on the ground that if was the last opportunity. 3. It is against this order that the present petition has been preferred on the ground that the order passed by the learned Court below is harsh and oppressive and that there was no deliberate or intentional default on the part of the petitioner in not examining the witnesses. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 4. Af Court has never appreciated or even accepted the orders of the Courts/Tribunals in refusing to render assistance to the parties in summoning witnesses. I fail to understand as to how the learned Tribunal could have directed the petitioner on the second date itself to produce the entire evidence on self responsibility instead of rendering all assistance in summoning of the witnesses, which in terms of order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a right conferred upon a party. 5. This Court in Vidya Devi and others v. Urgan Toshi and others, CMPMO No. 211 of 2014, decided on 3.7.2015, had the occasion to deaf with a similar issue and it was held:- "6. This Court on more than one occasion has held that Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts an obligation on the Court to render all assistance in summoning of witnesses and as a general rule the parties are entitled for examination of witnesses, though in certain cases time frame may be exception. This Court on more than one occasion has held that Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts an obligation on the Court to render all assistance in summoning of witnesses and as a general rule the parties are entitled for examination of witnesses, though in certain cases time frame may be exception. This Court has further held that merely because of the cases ore old and targeted one, the same cannot be a ground for the Courts and Tribunals to proceed rashly with such coses. 7. In FAO No. 285 of 2014, titled National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Jhanpli Devi, decided on 21.05.2015, this Court held:- "3. Can the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities proceed rashly with the cases only because these nte old and targeted ones? Is the Court rendering any favour while granting assistance to the parties by issuing process to the witnesses summoned? These are certain questions which are required to be considered in these appeals. 9. Of late, there appears to be a rising trend in the Subordinate Courts where they ore totally oblivious of their duties to render not only justice but do complete justice to the parties. This is particularly so when the cases are relatively old and targeted ones. 10. Firstly, I see no reason why the Commissioner should have imposed cost while allowing the aforesaid application preferred by the Insurance Company more particularly, when the appellant/insurance company was not at fault, because admittedly it was the claimants who for the first time had confronted RW-2 in his cross-examination with driving licence Ex.R-IX and immediately thereafter the Insurance Company had moved the application for permission to lead additional evidence 11. Secondly, it is not understandable as to why the Court refused to render any assistance for summoning the witnesses through Court process and directed the Insurance Company to produce the witnesses from the office of District Transport Officer, Senapati District Manipur on self responsibility. It needs to be re-emphasised and re-stated that the Courts do no favour to any party by summoning witnesses through its process. The same is rather a right granted under the law to the parties in lis. 12. Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts an obligation on the Court to render all assistance to summoning of the witnesses. The same is rather a right granted under the law to the parties in lis. 12. Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts an obligation on the Court to render all assistance to summoning of the witnesses. As a general rule, the parties are entitled as of right to obtain summons to witnesses, though in certain cases the time frame may be an exception." 6. That apart, it would be noticed that even on the date when the petitioner's evidence came to be closed, statements of two witnesses had already been recorded. If was only third opportunity which had been granted to the petitioner and there is no finding recorded even by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner was deliberately delaying the outcome of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal appears to be oblivious of the fact that it was dealing with the claim petition and there would be hardly any reason why the petitioner would like to delay the outcome thereof. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained and it liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. is set aside. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before learned Tribunal on 23.11.2015 on which date, the Court shall fix the date for recording entire evidence of the petitioner and shall further provide all necessary assistance for summoning the witnesses, it is made clear that no further opportunity, under any circumstance, shall be provided to the petitioner for this purpose. 8. Even though the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, nonetheless insofar as the respondents No. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have been dragged to unnecessary litigation, accordingly writ petition is though allowed in the aforesaid terms, but the same would, however, be subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- i.e. Rs. 1000/- each to respondents No. 1 and 2 to be paid by the petitioner. 9. With these observations, petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.