The main legal point established is that in certain circumstances, such as the petitioners' nationality and age, the Court may allow the recording of evidence through video conferencing with specific terms and conditions.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for recording of their evidence either by way of Commission or through video conferencing as the petitioners are senior citizens and Chinese Nationals.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.05.2008 at about 11.00 PM, deceased, namely, late Mr.Xie Xiaochao was travelling in Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.DL-1YB-0897 and was coming back to Delhi from Agra. A TATA Truck bearing No.MP-07HB-1587, which was coming on the other side of the road, hit the Maruti Esteem Car by jumping off the divider. The said Truck hit the Car on the right side, wherein the deceased was sitting on the rear seat behind the driver’s seat. Consequently, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Palwal, Haryana on 14.05.2008. Due to the accident, the deceased named above died at the spot.

3. On 13.05.2008, deceased had come to India from China to attend a Seminar organized by the Company alongwith Mr.Xiang Wang, Vice President of the Company and had checked in Hotel Sheraton. Hence, the deceased was residing in India at the

time of his death.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a claim petition under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court. Issues have already been framed by the Trial Court on 06.01.2010 and the case is pending for recording evidence of the petitioners.

5. Accordingly, an application was filed by the petitioners for summoning the witnesses alongwith list of witnesses way back in May, 2010. Thereafter, another application under Order XXVI Rules 1, 4 and 5 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioners for examining themselves by way of Commission. The learned Presiding Officer of the concerned Trial Court was of the view that the petitioners are old and nationals of China, therefore, directed the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to seek necessary instructions for conducting their examination by way of Commission.

6. Pursuant thereto, on 14.07.2010, respondent No.1/Insurance Company informed the Trial Court that their Company did not have its office in China. Hence, vide order dated 17.01.2011, the Trial Court directed the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to first explore the possibility of compromise and posted the matter for 31.01.2011. On said date, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company moved an application seeking permission to examine the petitioners by way of interrogatories to be sent through Indian High Commission in China.

7. Accordingly, in compliance of the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court, evidence by way of affidavit of the petitioner No.1 duly translated and attested from the Competent Authority in China was filed by the petitioners. Same is enclosed as Annexure P-10.

8. Thereafter, respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to file the interrogatories/questionnaire to the petitioners and if required, the examination of the petitioners would be conducted through video conferencing.

9. However, due to the change of the Presiding Officer of the concerned Trial Court, the Trial Court insisted on the personal presence of the petitioners, despite the fact that orders have been passed by the Predecessor directing respondent No.1/Insurance Company to provide interrogatories which would be answered by the petitioners either on affidavit or by cross-examining them through video conferencing.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had moved another application before the Trial Court seeking modification of the said order.

11. Thereafter, petitionersmade their endeavours to prove the FIR by summoning the Investigating Officer of the present case, but he did not appear for the reasons best known to him. Having no option, vide order dated 13.09.2012, the Trial Court issued the bailable warrants against the Investigating O