The court reaffirmed that under Article 227, it has limited authority to interfere with Tribunal decisions unless there is a manifest error or illegality.

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. 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 li