Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1073
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Tija Devi - Appellant
Versus
Girdhari Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4125 of 2005
Decided On : 04/18/2006
Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the Petitioner.
Mr. O.P. Singhvi, Mr. V.K. Mathur and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the Respondents.
The Court emphasized the inherent power of the Tribunal to do real and substantial justice and criticized a perfunctory and detached approach in closing down evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Evidence Closure - - -
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal closing her right to lead evidence. The Tribunal had granted several adjournments but closed the evidence due to the petitioner's failure to lead evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order closing the evidence cannot be sustained as the Tribunal's approach was detached from the realities and perfunctory. The Court directed the Tribunal to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead her evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Tribunal's decision to close the evidence due to the petitioner's failure to lead evidence despite several adjournments and the petitioner's plea of being a poor illiterate lady who had lost her son in a vehicular accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are intended to subserve the cause of justice and that the Tribunal has inherent power to do real and substantial justice. It criticized the Tribunal's approach as perfunctory and detached from the realities.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Tribunal was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead her evidence.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioner, claimant in MAC Case No. 104/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh has submitted this writ petition against the order passed by the Tribunal on 01.06.2005 closing her right to lead evidence.
2. It appears from the order-sheets placed on record that the claim application was originally submitted by Lichhma, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Bhanwarlal (son of the petitioner) in a vehicular accident. It further appears that the said claimant Lichhma, also expired issueless on 16.01.2003. The petitioner has thereafter been transposed as claimant by the order dated 25.02.2004.
3. The learned Tribunal found on 01.06.2005 that the case was pending since the year 1999 and issues were framed on 29.05.2002 and despite extending several opportunities and despite granting last chance on 16.02.2005, the claimant still failed to adduce evidence and, therefore, evidence was required to be closed.
4. Assailing the order dated 01.06.2005, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that a look at the order-sheets of the case makes it apparent that on substantial number of occasions, the matter has been adjourned for no fault of the petitioner; that even after granting of the last opportunity on 16.02.2005, next two dates were adjourned for the Lawyers not attending to work and in the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner on 01.06.2005 without considering the plight of the petitioner who is a poor illiterate lady and has lost her son in vehicular accident and even her daughter-in-law has also expired. Learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the order impugned with the submissions that the Tribunal has shown utmost leniency to the petitioner and granted several adjournments for leading evidence and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in closing the evidence on the petitioners failure to lead evidence despite last opportunity.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained.
6. A comprehension of the order-sheets makes it clear that in this claim case filed in the year 1999 issues were framed only on 29.05.2002 and thereafter most of the time the case had been adjourned either for the Presiding Officer being not available or for the learned Counsel for the parties not attending to work. After framing of the issues on 29.05.2002, the case had been adjourned on 28.08.2002 on account of the lawyers abstaining from work because of condolence; on the next date of 30.10.2002, the case had been adjourned for the lawyers striking work; on 22.01.2003 the case had been adjourned for the Presiding Officer being on leave; on 26.02.2003 again the case had been adjourned for the lawyers not attending because of condolence.
7. On the next date of 30.04.2003 again the case had been adjourned for the lawyers not attending because of condolence but the Tribunal had noticed the application having been moved on 10.04.2003 informing about death of Lichhma on 16.01.2003 and for transposition of the present petitioner as the claimant. The said application had been decided only on 25.02.2004 after another round of adjournments, wherein for at least three occasions, the Presiding Officer was not available and on one occasion, the lawyers did not attend because of condolence. After transposition of the petitioner as claimant, the first date for filing of amended claim was fixed on 10.03.2004 and then the case was posted for evidence on 21.07.2004.
8. On 21.07.2004 again the case was adjourned for the Presiding Officer being not available and of course two adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner for evidence on 22.09.2004 and
29.09.2004 but again, on next two dates of 011.2004 and 19.01.2005 case had been adjourn
