The judgment established that a witness's prior claim does not preclude them from testifying in a related matter, promoting a fair hearing.

This original Petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.12.2020 in I.A. No. 2/2020 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 756/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. By the impugned order, the Claims Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the claimant to examine a certain Asim Ahammed @ Asim, who was the pillion rider in the bike ridden by the deceased Manzoor.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained under law as the only reason stated therein is that the proposed witness has also filed O.P.(M.V.) No. 1129/2017 u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents. It is stated that the original petition filed by the claimants is one filed u/s 166 of the .

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the application is filed belatedly and that, too, at the time of hearing of the matter. It is submitted that ample opportunities were granted, which were not availed.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced.

5. The petitioners herein are the claimants in O.P.(M.V) No.

756/2017, which is one filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the proposed witness has preferred an application u/s 163A of the , and the same is pending as O.P.(M.V) No. 1129/2017. According to the Tribunal, being the pillion rider, the proposed witness cannot be permitted to depose in the instant case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in order to prove the accident, there is no better person than the Pillion Rider, who was the solitary eye witness. Technicalities shall not stand in the way of a claimant to adduce the best evidence to prove their case, contends the learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, the fact that the pillion rider has filed a claim petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a reason which should have persuaded the Tribunal to reject the request of the petitioners

7. Having considered the submissions, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of one Manzoor, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Their application was to examine the pillion rider who was the prime witness to prove their claim. The Tribunal has taken the view that as the pillion rider has himself filed a claim petition against the same respondents, he cannot be permitted to depose in the case. I am not able to sustain the above order.

Resultantly this Original Petition is ordered as follows:

(i) Ext. P5 will stand set aside.

(ii) I.A. No.2/2020 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 756/2017 will stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to permit the petitioner to examine the witness cited in the application.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 108/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION OP(MV)NO. 756/2017 DATED 22.06.2017 OF MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY AZEEM AHAMMED IN OP(MV) 1129/2017 OF MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 11.09.2017, EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 2/2020 IN OP(MV) 756/2017 OF MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 23.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA 2/2020 IN OP(MV)

756/2017 FILED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY DATED

25.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.2/2020 IN OP (MV)

756/2017 DATED 10.12.2020.