Hon'ble TATIA, J.—At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present writ petition is having identical facts as were the facts in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4217/2010 preferred by the same party New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and these two writ petitions have been preferred because of the person that because of one of the accident occurred on 2.8.2008, two separate claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur by two separate set of claimants.

3. In both the claim cases by identical order, appellant's applications seeking leave to defend the claims were dismissed by the same Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Both the writ petitions were listed together before this bench on 12.5.2010 and it was submitted by learned counsel for the parties that in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur because of the reason that procedure adopted by the Tribunal was questioned by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. S.B.C.W.P. No. 4217/2010 was decided by this Court by detailed judgment dated 7.12.2010 and it has been held that Rule 10.19 permits the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to record the memorandum of substance of evidence of witnesses and apprehension that the questions which are permissible for Insurance Company in cross-examination are not allowed to be put to the witnesses by the Tribunal is concerned, the party should follow the procedure of submitting application stating their question in the application, so appropriate order can be passed by the Tribunal and on the basis of which, obviously, in the appellate Court, the grounds can be taken by the aggrieved party. This Court also, when pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on the back side of the application itself and copy of which has not been placed on record by the petitioner thereby petitioner suppressed the original order and placed on record the copy of the order-sheet only, observed that such practise of writing order on the back side of the application itself cannot be appreciated as it may cause confusion as happened in above case.

5. Though the judgment dated 7.12.2010 is a detailed judgment given in he same set of facts, which are available in the present writ petition, yet learned counsel for the petitioner very ably drew my attention to few more provisions and submitted that these provisions are also required to be considered and according to him if these provisions are considered, then the summary procedure would not be available in MACT trial where the award is appealable under Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988 for short).

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner complete procedure for claims Tribunal in the matter of adjudication of claims of the parties arising out of motor accident claims has been given in Chapter X of the Rules of 1990 framed under the Act of 1988 and as per the scheme of rules, the trial of the claim is jut like the trial of a civil suit and in contesting matters, the parties are required to be examined by the Court and evidence of any witness includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination as is provided under Section 137 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also submitted that cross-examination is a necessary part of the evidence without which the statement given by party cannot become the evidence. It is also submitted that the cross-examination gives a valuable right to the other party to bring on record the truth from the mouth of the witness himself and also gives a right to adversary party to expose the credibility of the witness himself. It is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if the evidence is recorded in the matter by recording the substance of evidence only by the Court/Claims Tribunal then that excludes the cross-examination by the adversary party and, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document