Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008
Date of decision: 5.2.2009
Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Limited and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate Advocate for respondent No.3
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
Respondents no. 4 and 8 stand served. None has entered
appearance on their behalf. Respondent no.5 is dead. Respondents No.
6 and 7 could not be served. However, it is common ground that the
respondents other than respondents no. l to 3 are not contesting in
character.
The challenge herein is to the validity of the order dated
8.10.2008 vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mukatsar
(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) allowed the reception of certified
copies of statement of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as Ex. R-5 and Ex.
R-6 respectively into evidence in spite of the fact that they had not been
examined in substantive evidence. Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh are
Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 -2-
****
otherwise claimants in MACT case No.65 of 26.10.2006.
In support of the finding, the learned Tribunal drew sustenance
from the fact that certified copy of a statement made in the course of
judicial proceedings is admissible in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
In that context, the Tribunal also noticed that the rules of procedure and
provisions of law of evidence”are not to be complied with strictly in a claim
petition under the Motor Vehicle Act.”.
The view is plainly indefensible and unsustainable. In view of
the conceded position that Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh are claimants in
the petition and they did not enter the witness box, the reception of their
statements which they made in Criminal Case FIR No.9 dated 19.4.1996
under Sections 279/304-A IPC, Police Station, GRP Abohar pertaining to
the impugned accident, would be illogical. When witnesses are alive and
amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court, the law would not entertain a
request for tendering of their statements (recorded before the Criminal
Court) into evidence. If the reception of such like statements is allowed,
the parties opposite shall, obviously, have no opportunity to cross examine
them. The view obtained by the learned Tribunal is not in accord with law.
The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned
order shall stand set aside.
The stay order dated 5.12.2008 shall stand vacated. The
vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned
forthwith.
February 05, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge