Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 590 (HP)

Reeta Devi v. Jindu Ram

2015-05-26

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Petition is instituted against Order dated 7.4.2015 rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur in MAC petition No.24-2 of 2013. 2. “Key Facts” necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakh. Respondent No.1 has received injury on 10.8.2010. He was 55 years old and earning Rs.9,000 per month. Claim petition was contested. Following issues were framed on 7.4.2014: “1. Whether on 10.8.2010 at about 3.30 pm near Liungari road Laraghat to Tunighat, Jindu Ram petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving driver of truck No. HP-51B-0752? OPP 2. If issue No.1 above is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the driver was driving the offending vehicle without valid and effective driving licence? OPR-2 5 Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid documents? OPR-2 6. Whether there was privity of contract between respondent No. 2 and respondent No.1? OPR-2 7. Relief” 3. Statement of the claimant was recoded on 12.12.2014 and statements of remaining two witnesses namely Neem Chand and Rajpal were recorded on 2.1.2015 and the claimant’s evidence was closed. Case was listed on 25.2.2015 for the entire evidence of the petitioner on taking steps within 5 days. On 25.2.2015 also evidence was not led by the petitioner. Matter was listed for 11.3.2015. On 11.3.2015, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner was led and matter was ordered to be listed on 7.4.2015 for entire evidence of the petitioner on his self-responsibility as a last opportunity. However, fact of the matter is that even on 7.4.2015, no evidence was produced by the petitioner. Evidence of the petitioner was closed and matter was ordered to be listed for recording evidence of the respondent No. 2. 4. It is evident from the facts enumerated herein above that despite numerous opportunities granted to the petitioner, he has not produced the evidence. Trial Court has given last opportunity on 11.3.2015 and despite that evidence was not produced on 7.4.2015. Reasons for not producing the evidence are not at all convincing. 4. It is evident from the facts enumerated herein above that despite numerous opportunities granted to the petitioner, he has not produced the evidence. Trial Court has given last opportunity on 11.3.2015 and despite that evidence was not produced on 7.4.2015. Reasons for not producing the evidence are not at all convincing. Only reason assigned is that due to some family engagement, he could not lead evidence. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the Order passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below. 5. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.