Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 687 of 2010.
Shailendra Kumar Singh
Vs.
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.3 Etah and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the
validity of the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the respondent no.1 wherein
application under Section 88C(2) moved by the petitioner has been rejected.
Brief background of the case is that Motor Accident Claim petition No.
96 of 1997 had been filed Vijendra Singh Versus Shailendra Kumar and
another. Petitioner claims that Tractor in question on account of which
accident had taken place on 4.12.1996 same had already been sold in favour
of Bhuri Singh Yadav. Petitioner has been trying to contend that once tractor
in question had been sold then liability in respect of claim is to be fastened on
the shoulder of Bhuri Singh Yadav. In the claim petition, petitioner’s case has
been that Tractor in question was got released in favour of Bhuri Singh Yadav
whereas fact of the matter is that he has never moved an application for
release of the tractor and entire manipulation has been made by the Bhuri
Singh Yadav. Petitioner had moved an application for expert opinion of the
disputed signature. Said application was rejected on 1.9.2006. Against the
same, petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54500 of 2006 and this
court passed order after noticing the fact that though impugned order, expert
opinion has been rejected, file of criminal case was summoned. Relevant
extract of the said judgement is being extracted below:-
” In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong in the
impugned order. If the petitioner had any grievance he
could approach the criminal Court which released the
Tractor. No Court except a higher court hearing appeal ,
revision etc. can decide the correctness or otherwise of
the proceedings of another Court. In the impugned order
it has repeatedly been held that the question as to
whether before the date of accident the petitioner had
already transferred the tractor on 28.12.1988 to Udai Vir
Singh respondent no.8, who thereafter transferred the
same to respondent no.9 or not would be decided after
evidence. The apprehension that only on the basis of
2release order in favour of petitioner, it will be held that at
the time of accident the tractor belonged to the petitioner
is unfounded. As already held in the impugned order, this
question will be decided after the evidence.
It is made abundantly clear that each and every
point raised by the petitioner shall be specifically dealt
with by the Claims Tribunal in its final judgment, the
findings must be recorded after appraisal of entire
evidence and the petitioner must be permitted to adduce
full evidence.
Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.”
Thereafter, petitioner moved an application and therein prayer was
made to accept the evidence and for cross examination, said application was
considered and was rejected on 3.10.2007. Thereafter, again application for
review had been moved with the same prayer and same has been rejected. At
this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
with vehemence that in the present case, for the end of justice for doing
complete justice in between the parties, such application ought to have been
allowed and as such writ petition be entertained and accordingly allowed.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual
position, which has emerged in the present case is that petitioner had moved
an application for expert opinion on the disputed signature and same was
rejected on 1.9.2006 and said order has been affirmed by this court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 54500 of 2006. In the said order it was made clear that
apprehension of the petitioner that challenge on the basis of release in favour
of the petitioner, that at the time of accident tractor belongs to the petitioner is
unfounded. It was made clear that said question will be decided after the
evidence, and it was also mentioned that each and every aspect of the matter
raised by the petitioner, shall be specifically dealt with in its final judgment and
finding must be recorded after appraisal of the evidence and petitioner must
be provided opportunity of hearing for adducing evidence. After the said order
has been passed, on 9.10.2006 again coining the said prayer though in
different manner, application was moved, which had been rejected on
22.10.2007 and then review application has also been rejected on 6.11.2009.
Interest of petitioner has been fully protected by this court. Whatsoever
specific prayer has been made by the petitioner in the application and what
3
would be its impact, and as to whether same will have material peacing will
be considered by the claim tribunal. At each stage when proceeding are en
route, it is not at all appropriate to interfere with the same.
Consequently in the facts of the present case whatsoever points are
being sought to be raised by the petitioner by filing present writ petition, it
would be open to the petitioner to raise before the claim tribunal at the point of
time of final judgment being passed by advancing arguments and then at the
said point of time each and every aspect of the matter shall be considered by
the tribunal while delivering the final judgment.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Dt.13.01.2010
T.S.