Abhay Kumar vs Lalla @ Lalaram and Others

M.K. Mudgal, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 10.12.2004 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashok Nagar in Claim Case No. 7/2003 dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. Assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned award the counsel for the appellant submits that the claims tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant without giving sufficient opportunity for producing the evidence. The counsel further urges that the appellant had produced his statement under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. but he could not appear before the court for the cross-examination as he was terribly busy with election duties and he was not permitted to leave the Headquarters during election. In such a situation, the learned trial court should have given him sufficient time to get his statement recorded in the case considering his job bindings. The counsel for the appellant requested that the impugned award be set aside and the case be remitted to the learned claims tribunal for deciding the case afresh after giving the opportunity to the claimant for producing the evidence.

The learned counsel for the respondents supporting the award submits that inspite of tribunal giving several opportunities to the appellant/claimant for producing the evidence he utterly failed to do so without any sufficient reason. In view of this fact, the learned trial court did not make any mistake in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/claimant. The learned counsels further state that in case the matter is remitted to the learned claims tribunal for deciding it afresh it may be ordered that the appellant/claimant should not get any interest for the period from filing the petition dated 23.02.99 to 11.10.13 remitting the case to the claims tribunal in case of any award is passed in favour of the claimant.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

On perusal of the record, it is evident that after framing issues on 19.9.02 the case was fixed for evidence on 30.09.02. Thereafter, the claimant produced his statement and the statement of the witness Mahesh Kumar under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 8.10.03. The cross-examination was conducted on the statement of the Mahesh Kumar on 31.01.04. Nevertheless, the cross-examination of the claimant could not be conducted as he did not appear before the court inspite of his being given ample opportunities. In the instant case, the statement of one more witness Mahendra Kumar was produced on 23.10.02 but his cross-examination too was not conducted as he did not turn up before the court.

As argued by the appellant''s counsel, the claimant being terribly engaged with election duties and constantly not getting the permission to leave the Headquarter due to election could not appear before the learned trial court.

Considering the above stated reason, it would be apt to give an opportunity to the claimant for producing the evidence as the provisions of the M.A.C.T. Act are beneficial for the injured. Therefore harshness should not be displayed in such cases. It is true that the claimant has been quite negligent in producing the evidence despite being given ample opportunities from 23.02.99 to 10.12.04, owing to which, he can be deprived of the interest for the period from filing the application to this date if any award is passed by the learned tribunal in his favour after remitting the case. Therefore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned award, the case is remitted to the learned claims tribunal with the direction that the claimant be given only two opportunities for producing the evidence with reasonable amount of time and the case be decided afresh as per provisions of the law. If any award is passed in favour of the claimant he would not be entitled to get the interest to the period from 23.02.99 to 11.10.2013. Parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 16.12.2013. The record of the trial court be sent immediately alongwith the copy of the order.

No order as to the costs.