Vishal Screening Plant vs Kusum Lata and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 13323-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 3361 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (for short ''the Tribunal''), vide which application of the Petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined.

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

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') was filed by Respondents-claimants for compensation on account of death of Surjit Singh, caused in a motor vehicle accident, which had taken place on 18.12.2008 involving JCB Machine bearing registration No. HR-38K-3818 being driven by Respondent No. 7-Sandeep Kumar @ Deepu, owned by present Petitioner and insured with Respondent No. 6-Insurance Company. Claimants are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased.

Petition was contested by Respondents. Issues were framed. Evidence of both the parties was closed. Case was fixed for arguments when the present application for additional evidence was filed on behalf of the Petitioner, which was declined by learned Tribunal, vide impugned order by observing that the application is nothing but a ploy to delay the decision of the case, which is pending for more than 2-1/2 years. It has also been observed that application was not supported by any affidavit.

Petitioner-Respondent No. 2 closed its evidence on 20.9.2010 after tendering some documents. Thereafter the case remained pending for evidence of remaining Respondents. Evidence of driver was also closed. He also approached this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2011, as he wanted to prove some typographical mistake in writing of his name in the driving license. Said plea was accepted and he was granted one opportunity by this Court. Evidence of driver was also closed.

Now the Petitioner intends to examine the same driver in his evidence. No ground, whatsoever, is made out as to why Petitioner has not examined its driver earlier when the case was fixed for its evidence. Respondents-claimants cannot be made to suffer due to negligence and inaction on the part of the Petitioner.

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon''ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, , that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:

Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.