Allahabad High Court High Court

Pankaj Kumar Pandey vs The Motor Accident Claim … on 28 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar Pandey vs The Motor Accident Claim … on 28 July, 2010
                                                               Court No. 21

                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2302 of 2010

                 Masihuddin alias Chhotu alias Chhotey Lal

                                   Versus

                    The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
                    / Special Judge, E.C. Act and others
                                     &

                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2304 of 2010

                           Pankaj Kumar Pandey

                                   Versus

                    The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
                    / Special Judge, E.C. Act and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Both the writ petitions are arising out of same accident, as such are
taken up together with the consent of the parties.

Grievance of the petitioners is that their evidence have been closed
whereas they still intend to produce evidence which is just and necessary of
proper adjudication of the claim petition, in such a situation and in this
background application moved on behalf of petitioner ought to have been
allowed and opportunity ought to have been provided for producing
evidence.

From the side of owner of the vehicle it has been stated that
petitioners are negligent, in such a situation and in this background rightful
orders have been passed.

After aforesaid arguments have been advanced, position which is
emerging in the present case is that claimants are interested in producing
Doctor as witness who had issued disability certificate to show and
substance the extent disability suffered by claimants. Said application in
question has been rejected on the ground that claimants evidence has been
closed. Even after claimants evidence has been closed even thereafter
authority of Motor Accident Tribunal to accord permission to adduce
evidence in the interest of justice is not prohibited. Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal can always summon any witness if it think necessary that
2

examination of such persons shall information in relation to the injury.

Here in the present case as request of the petitioners has been
abruptly turned down, as such action taken by Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal is not being approved of. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed
to give opportunity to the claimants to produce evidence and further also
give opportunity to respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal if any against
the evidence adduced and claim petition be decided in accordance with law.
Order of refusal passed on earlier occasion by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal is set aside.

Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed.
Dated 28th July, 2010
Dhruv