The claim petition should be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties and not on the material available in the Case Diary.

( 1 ) WITH regard to an incident, wherein the husband of revisionist had died, she filed claim petition No. 69 of 2006. In the said claim petition written statement was filed, and therein an application was moved to summon the Case Diary and the Investigating Officer of the said case. On the said application being filed, objections had been raised. Thereafter the said application has been rejected. At this juncture, present revision has been filed.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended with vehemence that the application, which was moved on behalf of defendant-revisionist ought to have been allowed , as such the view which has been taken is incorrect view.

( 3 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken and no interference be made.

( 4 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that accident took place from vehicle No. U. P. 11a-4872, which gave rise to filing of Motor Accident Claim Petition referred to above, in which evidence had been led from both the sides. After the evidence was closed, an application was moved requesting therein for summoning of the Case Diary and the Investigating Officer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed order mentioning therein that the claim petition has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and not on the basis of the material as available in the Case Diary, and in this background, the application in question was rejected. The view taken by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustifiable view.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Vijay Laxmi and others, (2004) 1, Accident and Compensation Cases 602, wherein specific allegation was that the vehicle in question was not the vehicle which caused the accident and claimant wrongly implicated the said vehicle, then in this background, view was taken that the Investigating Officer should be summoned, as his evidence would be crucial. In the present case, as far as order dated 30. 04. 2007 is concerned, the same proceeds to mention only in regard to Case Diary and has not mentioned any word as to whether Investigating Officer is required to be summoned or not. Consequently, in the facts of the present case no interference is being made with the impugned order. However, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to see that the aforementioned claim petition is decided within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on day to day basis, and in case Motor Accident Claims Tribunal feels that evidence of Investigating Officer would be necessary, then it would be open to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to summon the Investigating Officer and deal with the matter in accordance with law. Subject to above observation, present contempt application is dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document