Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1584 (MP)

Dashrath Yadav v. Raja

2022-12-21

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - I n this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed in M.A.C.C.No.1424/2017 passed by Member 14th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal; whereby the petitioner's right to adduce evidence has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.24,50,000/-. Vide order dated 08.07.2022 MACT has closed the right of the petitioner/claimant to adduce evidence. The Court closed the right of claimant on the ground that despite of several opportunities granted to adduce evidence and even after imposing cost of Rs.500/- as a last indulgence, the claimant could not turn up. 3. Learned counsel further contended that because of the lockdown due to corona pandemic, he shifted to his village and as his mobile was not working, therefore, he could not contact to his Advocate. Under these circumstances, he could not appear before the Court and the proceedings of the trial court became delayed. Since the right has been closed, irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit cost for restoring his right to adduce evidence on the next date of hearing. 4. T o buttress his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Singh Vs. D.S.Sharma and another ( 2010 (2) MPLJ 4 ), wherein the Apex Court has held that award of costs, is an alternative available to the Court, instead of closing the right to cross-examination or evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that one opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 5. Considering the nature of the order this Court proposes to pass, no notice to the respondents is necessary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and with a view to afford opportunity of fair trial to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to impose the cost for restoring the right of petitioner to adduce evidence. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 is hereby set aside. 7. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and with a view to afford opportunity of fair trial to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to impose the cost for restoring the right of petitioner to adduce evidence. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to appear and adduce evidence before the trial court on the next date of hearing fixed by the Claims Tribunal subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent no.3/Insurance Company on or before the next date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal. 8. It is made clear that if the cost is paid within the stipulated period, the Claims Tribunal shall grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence and if the same has not been done by the next date of hearing, the opportunity to adduce evidence shall be closed automatically. 9. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of.