Fajarbi @ Hajarbi vs Jameel and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide which application of the Petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Petitioner filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') on account of death of her husband Jamalu in the accident involving vehicle No. HR55-C-5861 being driven by Respondent No. 1 Jameel and owned by Respondent No. 2- Sahabuddin and Respondent No. 3 is the Insurer of the said vehicle. After closing of evidence of both the parties, an application for leading additional evidence was filed on behalf of the Petitioner, which was declined by learned Tribunal vide impugned order.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the present is a claim petition and that Petitioner being widow, could not secure the presence of the witnesses earlier. It has further been contended that P Ws Umar Mohd. and Gafur, who were the eye witnesses of the accident as the FIR was also lodged by Umar Mohd. and Gafur was an injured witness, are necessary witnesses to be examined in this case. Due to negligence of counsel for the Petitioner, evidence of the Petitioner was closed and hence, it is contended that due to negligence of the counsel, Petitioner being widow, cannot be made to suffer. Moreover, strict rules of the CPC are not applicable in the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal and that only general principles are applicable.

On the other hand learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has opposed the petition merely on the ground that application was moved at a belated stage.

Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the Petitioner to examine Umar Mohd. and Gafur, who are essential witnesses as Umar Mohd. had lodged the FIR of the accident and that Gafur is an injured eye witness. So far as the fact that Petitioner was negligent which resulted into the causing of delay in decision of the petition, Respondents can be compensated by way of cost.

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and while setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal, it is directed to grant one opportunity to the Petitioner to examine Umar Mohd. and Gafur subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-, which shall be a condition precedent.