Jyoti vs Tejbir

Sat Paul Bangarh, J.—The petitioners, herein, are the claimants in MACT No. 95 of 2013/2012. They closed their evidence in affirmative, but afterward, they filed application for additional evidence for exhibiting the autopsy report of the deceased-Deepak, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, as also, for examination of investigating officer. This application was opposed by the respondents. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal vide order dated 25.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the application. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners, who are the claimants before the Tribunal have filed the present revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof and for acceptance of their application for additional evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the application was wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the same may be allowed by acceptance of the present revision.

Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Tribunal observed in the impugned order that the postmortem can be taken into consideration, even without exhibiting it, because the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature. Regarding examination of investigating officer, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the investigating officer cannot prove the negligence of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as indubitably, he was not present at the time of accident. So, the fate of the case will not be improved through the examination of the investigating officer, in the case u/s 304-A IPC, that was registered against the respondent No. 1, regarding the accident, wherein, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had died.

So, no case is made out to allow the examination of investigating officer, as his evidence is not material in nature. Besides, it was open to the petitioners to examine him at the time when they were leading evidence in affirmative.

So, far as, the autopsy report of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is concerned that must be exhibited and the Tribunal, shall put an exhibit on the autopsy report of the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, in view of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Nand Kishore and Others, wherein, it was held that postmortem report and other relevant documents prepared by police or doctor, while discharging official duty are per se admissible in evidence without any formal proof. By doing so, no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite party, who, if felt aggrieved by this order may approach this Court through an appropriate petition. Resultantly, the instant revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed; impugned order is partly set aside and partly upheld and the Tribunal is directed to exhibit the autopsy report of the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.