Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 134 (RAJ)

Satya Narayan v. Kanwar Lal

2023-01-11

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by MACT No.2, District-Kota in M.A.C. No. 474/2013 by which the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses has been dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the settled position of law and the facts of the present matter and therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. In this regard, learned counsel further submitted that to resolve the controversy raised by the Insurance Company with regard to its liability, the witnesses sought to be summoned by the petitioner-claimants were necessary witnesses and they ought to have been called by the learned Tribunal by allowing the application filed by the petitioner for re-opening of the evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner could not be dismissed only on the ground that the claim petitions were listed at the stage of final arguments. In support of the said contention, it was argued that the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 empower the Tribunal to summon those witnesses, whose evidence is necessary for the adjudication of a controversy raised in the claim petition. Therefore, the impugned order was passed in contravention of the provisions of Chapter 10 of the said Rules of 1990. Learned counsel further submitted that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claim petitions, therefore, the act of re-opening evidence and summoning witnesses shall not prejudice the interest of any of the parties to the petition as they shall have the opportunity to crossexamine them as well. Hence, in light of the submissions made herein-above, it was urged that to bring the correct facts on record, summoning the witnesses is imperative and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal should be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8039/2018 titled as Guddi Bai & Ors vs. Sitaram Meghwal & Ors. 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8039/2018 titled as Guddi Bai & Ors vs. Sitaram Meghwal & Ors. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is consonance with the settled position of law and does not call for any interference of this Court. It was submitted that vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2018, the Tribunal has given justified reasons in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for reopening the evidence in the claim proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that the claim petition was filed in the year 2013; whereas, the present application was filed at the stage of final arguments, after the evidence of all parties had concluded a long time ago i.e. the application was filed by the petitioner on 13.11.2018, while the evidence was closed in the year 2017. Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 1 and 2 have admitted to the fact of the accident. Therefore, at this stage, in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, calling the officers of Hindustan Petroleum was unwarranted on part of the petitioners and was merely done in an attempt to fill up the lacuna of the case in order to shift the liability upon the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.3. Learned counsel also submitted that on account of the interim protection granted in the present matter, the lis in hand is presently frustrated. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court judgment in (2016) 11 SCC 296 titled as Ram Rati vs. Mange Ram & Ors. 5. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the case and perused the judgement(s) cited at Bar. 6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors. : (2020) 7 SCC 327 . 7. In the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that the claim petition was filed in the year 2013. Whereas, the stage of evidence commenced in the year 2015, which was then concluded in the year 2017. Thereafter, the application for re-opening the evidence was filed by the petitioner after the lapse of approximately one and half year i.e. on 13.01.2018 for filling the lacuna(s) in the case. Furthermore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Guddi Bai (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present matter, as in the said case it was held that the trial court is the master of the case to be tried by it. Moreover, it is their wisdom, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which they can exercise for a fair and legal adjudication in the matter. Therefore, until and unless, an illegality or a manifest error of law has crept in the impugned order, this court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the impugned order. On the other hand, reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Ram Rati (Supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the present matter. In the said case, it was held that the re-opening of evidence and examination of witnesses cannot be allowed when there is an attempt to fill up the omission/lacunae in evidence already led by the witnesses. 8. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. 8. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court below, which is in consonance with the dictum of the Apex Court as enunciated in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Ram Rati (Supra). There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the learned Tribunal. The order impugned does not cause any serious prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the reason stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.11.2018. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Furthermore, the interim protection granted in the matter is also lifted. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.