1974 Supreme(Raj) 319
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.P.Beri, J.
Mst. Pushpa - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondent
S.B.Civil Revision No. 431 of 1974.
Decided On : 27-11-1974
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:R.M. Bhansali, Advocate.
For the Non-Petitioner:B.C. Bhansali, Advocate.
Justice should not be frustrated due to procedural delays, and the negligence of a party can be compensated in costs.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Widow's claim for compensation for husband's death by accident
Fact of the Case:
Widow's claim for compensation on account of her husband's death by accident before the Tribunal created under section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner failed to submit the list of witnesses in time, leading to a delay in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision application and directed the summoning of two crucial witnesses, emphasizing that the negligence of the petitioner can be compensated in costs and justice should not be frustrated due to the delay in submitting the witness list.
Issues: Delay in submitting the list of witnesses, negligence of the petitioner, and the need for justice to not be frustrated due to procedural delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that justice should not be frustrated due to procedural delays and that the negligence of the petitioner can be compensated in costs.
Final Decision: The revision application was allowed, and the court directed the summoning of crucial witnesses and the expeditious disposal of the dispute.
JUDGMENT
1. - This revision application was listed for orders on exparte stay order granted by this Court on 12.8.1974.
2. The matter involved is small and the learned counsel are agreed that let this revision application be disposed of after hearing the parties. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This a widow's claim for compensation on account of her husband's death by accident, and she has claimed compensation before the Tribunal created under section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act. On behalf of the widow on list of the witnesses was submitted and no process fee was paid and the lerned District Judge indulgently allowed time to the petitioner to produce the witnesses. Even then the witnesses did not appear and the grievance of the applicant is that one is the Station House Officer of Udaimandir and the other is a servant of the Union of India who would depose regarding the service conditions of the deceased Banshilal deceased and these two witnesses are not likely to appear as per witnesses without the process of the Court. The rest of the witnesses, the learned counsel says, the applicant will produce herself. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy as to the extent to laches the petitioner was guilty of in not submitting the list in time. The ends of justice, however, require at she may be given an opportunity to lead her evidence.
4. Mr. Bhansali emphasises that the petitioner has been negligent. Be that as it may, I think, the negligence of the petitioner can be compensated in costs and justice should not be permitted to be frustrated on account of the laches in submitting the list.
5. I accordingly, accept this revision application and direct as under that the names of the two witnesses, namely of the Station House Officer of Police Station Udaimandir and a clerk of the Establishment Section or the Personnel Branch which ever is appropriate, of the Divi. Superintendent, N.R. Jodhpur's office along with record shall be summoned. The process fee shall be paid within 3 days from today along with the rest money, if any. The Summons may also be permitted to be sent by registered post in addition to the usual mode of service and further, this subject to the payment of a sum of Rs. 40/- (Rupees Forty) as costs to the contesting non-petitioner. The rest of the witnesses will be produced on 13.1.1975, that is, on the date already fixed, without the assistance of the Court as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant. The Court will only issue summons for the two witnesses aforesaid and this long standing dispute shall be expeditiously disposed of.
6. With these observations, the revision application is allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document