Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1319 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. Baju Ram

2019-09-06

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 08.05.2019, passed in CMA No. 202-N/6 of 2019, by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. vide which an application filed by the present petitioner, who is respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for allowing respondent No. 1 to appear as a witness in support of his case, has been disallowed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that a claim petition has been filed by claimant Baju Ram seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of injuries received by him in an accident involving vehicle Tata Ace bearing Registration No. UK07CA-3606. Present petitioner, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. Driver of the vehicle has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and Insurance Company is impleaded as respondent No. 3. After the respective parties filed their response to the claim petition and also led evidence in support of their respective versions and the matter was being taken up for final hearing, an application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the present petitioner in which it was mentioned that as respondent No. 3, i.e. Insurance Company, during the course of leading its evidence, had produced a driving licence Mark X and its verification report Ext. RW1/F, purportedly pertaining to the driver of the owner, the petitioner be permitted to lead evidence qua the effect of the said documents as the documents were placed on record by respondent No. 3 after the evidence of the petitioner stood closed. This application stands rejected vide impugned order by learned Tribunal by assigning the following reasons:- "From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the ld counsel for the owner (respondent N. 1) vide his separate statement recorded has exhibited the driving licence of the driver Pawan Kumar as Ext. R-Z and also closed his evidence. It is a matter of record that evidence in this case has already been closed on 2-1-2019 and since then the case is listed for arguments. R-Z and also closed his evidence. It is a matter of record that evidence in this case has already been closed on 2-1-2019 and since then the case is listed for arguments. The owner of the vehicle (Sanjay Kumar) and driver failed to appear in the witness-box. If the driver was having another driving licence Mark-X, then the owner should have appeared in the witness-box and to state this fact that his driver was having two driving licenses. Even the owner in his reply failed to stated who was his driver and whether he has verified the driving licence of the respondent No. 2 before engaging him as a driver in his vehicle. This application has been filed simply to gain the time and misuse the process of law, therefore, the application is dismissed." 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order which stands assailed by way of present petition. This is for the reason that in the course of adjudication of the claim petition, present petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of stand taken by him before the learned Tribunal and he availed that opportunity. Similarly, Insurance Company was also provided said opportunity and in the course of leading evidence, it has placed on record certain documents. It is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses of the Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal. 6. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that because some documents were placed on record by the Insurance Company after the evidence of the petitioner stood recorded, therefore, the petitioner be allowed to again enter into the witness box, in my considered view, is totally misconceived. But natural, because the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 1 before learned Tribunal, he was first of all called to lead his evidence which he did. It is reiterated that when respondent No. 3 was leading its evidence, petitioner had the opportunity to impeach the veracity of the witnesses of the Insurance Company by way of cross examination. That is all the law envisages. It is reiterated that when respondent No. 3 was leading its evidence, petitioner had the opportunity to impeach the veracity of the witnesses of the Insurance Company by way of cross examination. That is all the law envisages. It is not provided in law that after subsequent respondents lead their respective evidence, then the respondent which has earlier led his/her evidence, shall again be given an opportunity to enter the witness box so as to rebut whatever material has been placed on record by the subsequent respondents. In fact, if the plea of the petitioner is allowed, then after the petitioner is given said opportunity, there is a possibility that other respondents will also put forth their claim that they should be given another opportunity to do the same. As I have already mentioned above, this is not the spirit in which the proceedings are to be held. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the documents which have been placed on record by the Insurance Company, learned Tribunal may ignore the licence/document which the petitioner has placed on record of the driver so engaged by him. In my considered view, this plea of the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. This Court has no reason to believe the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, this Court believes that learned Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the claim petition before it will take into consideration not only the pleadings of the respective parties but also the evidence which has been placed on record by them in support of their respective version and thereafter, after appreciation of the entire material on record, the claim petition shall be decided by the learned Tribunal. In view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. In view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 08.05.2019, passed in CMA No. 202-N/6 of 2019, by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. vide which an application filed by the present petitioner, who is respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for allowing respondent No. 1 to appear as a witness in support of his case, has been disallowed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that a claim petition has been filed by claimant Baju Ram seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of injuries received by him in an accident involving vehicle Tata Ace bearing Registration No. UK07CA-3606. Present petitioner, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. Driver of the vehicle has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and Insurance Company is impleaded as respondent No. 3. After the respective parties filed their response to the claim petition and also led evidence in support of their respective versions and the matter was being taken up for final hearing, an application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the present petitioner in which it was mentioned that as respondent No. 3, i.e. Insurance Company, during the course of leading its evidence, had produced a driving licence Mark X and its verification report Ext. RW1/F, purportedly pertaining to the driver of the owner, the petitioner be permitted to lead evidence qua the effect of the said documents as the documents were placed on record by respondent No. 3 after the evidence of the petitioner stood closed. This application stands rejected vide impugned order by learned Tribunal by assigning the following reasons:- "From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the ld counsel for the owner (respondent N. 1) vide his separate statement recorded has exhibited the driving licence of the driver Pawan Kumar as Ext. R-Z and also closed his evidence. This application stands rejected vide impugned order by learned Tribunal by assigning the following reasons:- "From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the ld counsel for the owner (respondent N. 1) vide his separate statement recorded has exhibited the driving licence of the driver Pawan Kumar as Ext. R-Z and also closed his evidence. It is a matter of record that evidence in this case has already been closed on 2-1-2019 and since then the case is listed for arguments. The owner of the vehicle (Sanjay Kumar) and driver failed to appear in the witness-box. If the driver was having another driving licence Mark-X, then the owner should have appeared in the witness-box and to state this fact that his driver was having two driving licenses. Even the owner in his reply failed to stated who was his driver and whether he has verified the driving licence of the respondent No. 2 before engaging him as a driver in his vehicle. This application has been filed simply to gain the time and misuse the process of law, therefore, the application is dismissed." 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order which stands assailed by way of present petition. This is for the reason that in the course of adjudication of the claim petition, present petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of stand taken by him before the learned Tribunal and he availed that opportunity. Similarly, Insurance Company was also provided said opportunity and in the course of leading evidence, it has placed on record certain documents. It is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses of the Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal. 6. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that because some documents were placed on record by the Insurance Company after the evidence of the petitioner stood recorded, therefore, the petitioner be allowed to again enter into the witness box, in my considered view, is totally misconceived. 6. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that because some documents were placed on record by the Insurance Company after the evidence of the petitioner stood recorded, therefore, the petitioner be allowed to again enter into the witness box, in my considered view, is totally misconceived. But natural, because the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 1 before learned Tribunal, he was first of all called to lead his evidence which he did. It is reiterated that when respondent No. 3 was leading its evidence, petitioner had the opportunity to impeach the veracity of the witnesses of the Insurance Company by way of cross examination. That is all the law envisages. It is not provided in law that after subsequent respondents lead their respective evidence, then the respondent which has earlier led his/her evidence, shall again be given an opportunity to enter the witness box so as to rebut whatever material has been placed on record by the subsequent respondents. In fact, if the plea of the petitioner is allowed, then after the petitioner is given said opportunity, there is a possibility that other respondents will also put forth their claim that they should be given another opportunity to do the same. As I have already mentioned above, this is not the spirit in which the proceedings are to be held. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the documents which have been placed on record by the Insurance Company, learned Tribunal may ignore the licence/document which the petitioner has placed on record of the driver so engaged by him. In my considered view, this plea of the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. This Court has no reason to believe the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, this Court believes that learned Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the claim petition before it will take into consideration not only the pleadings of the respective parties but also the evidence which has been placed on record by them in support of their respective version and thereafter, after appreciation of the entire material on record, the claim petition shall be decided by the learned Tribunal. In view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.