JUDGMENT
O.P. Bishnoi, J.
1. These two appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company against an Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali dated 1.3.2002.
2. The claim petitions were opposed by the Insurance Company, apart from other grounds, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle Kuldeep Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
3. Issue No. 6 was raised on this objection of the appellant. The licence purported to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Raipur (M.P.) was alleged to be a forged one and upon enquiry of the appellant, the said Licensing Authority had sent a communication to the effect that the licence in question was never issued by the said office.
4. The said communication was produced in the Court and in order to prove the same, process was issued to summon one P. Ekka, who was the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (M.P.). On 5.1.2002, the court ordered that the case was old and an opportunity to examine the witness was afforded at the cost of Rs. 500/- against the appellant. It was further ordered that it will be the responsibility of the appellant to get the bailable warrant served upon the said witness. On the next date i.e. 8.2.2002, the witness was not present and the learned Judge found that the adjournment was granted on payment of costs and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no further adjournment could be granted. Consequently, the evidence was closed and ultimately, the Award was passed on 1.3.2002.
5. learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is Insurance Company who wanted to examine the witness and due process was filed for the same. The direction of the court to get the warrant served personally, was not possible because the process is served through the Agency of the court or through the police. It is submitted that the closure of the evidence by the court was not proper. A judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Uchhab Kanwar and Anr. v. L.Rs. of Ram Swaroop and Ors., has been cited in support of the argument.
6. Needless to say that the witness, which was summoned was the sole person to depose about the genuineness of the driving licence, which according to the appellant, was a forged document. The Regional Transport Officer, Raipur was a Government Officer and it is not expected that the party should bring him at his own level. It was desirable on the part of the Tribunal to secure the attendance of the witness and even coercive method could be used to secure his attendance. It is not in dispute that the court was summoning the witness and his testimony was very important for the decision of issue No. 6. In these circumstances, the court was under an obligation to compel the attendance of the witness. Closure of the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, I find that the case requires to be remanded back in order to record the statement of the witness discussed above. I find no necessity to issue notices to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned Award dated 1.3.2002 is set aside. The case is remanded back with the direction that the witness in question shall be summoned and his attendance shall be secured by coercive methods if need be. Thereafter the case shall be decided in accordance with law.