Appeal in motor accident compensation case dismissed. Tribunal upheld liability despite insurance company claiming driver's license was fake. Additional evidence rejected as party voluntarily closed right to examine witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 215 of 2017
---- Appellant
Versus
| 8. Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Chandilal Agrawal, R/o Village Main Road Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. |
|---|
| C.G.15- A C-3974) (Non-Applicant No.2) ---- Respondents |
| _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate |
| For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Amarnath Pandey, Advocate |
| For Respondents No.7 & 8 : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate |
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
Order on board
19.06.2024
2
Heard.
3
therefore, the appellant Insurance company cannot be held liable.
4
RTO Hazaribagh and the appellant Insurance Company also made some efforts to call the witnesses, however, they failed to examine the RTO Hazaribagh. They submit that now in order to fill up the lacuna, the said application has been filed. They submit that no application under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC was filed by the appellant Insurance Company to examine the witness from the RTO Hazaribag. They further submit that the Insurance company voluntarily closed its right to examine any witnesses and even there is no witness from the insurance company to substantiate the fact that there is a violation of terms and condition.
5
from RTO Hazaribagh. From the record, it does not appear that any application to examine the RTO Hazaribagh in commission under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC was filed. The ordersheet further reflects that after 2-3 occasions, no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant insurance company, therefore, the right to lead evidence on behalf of the appellant insurance company was voluntarily closed by itself. From the record, it also does not reflect that any Officer of the insurance company was examined though it was in their knowledge that the driving license was found to be fake and still they failed to examine any of the witnesses like Officer or the investigator who had prepared the investigation report. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the application of the appellant Insurance Company stands rejected.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
vishakha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for adducing additional evidence regarding a fake driving license can be entertained when the party voluntarily closed its right to examine witnesses.
Whether the applicant insurance company's failure to produce the investigator's report constitutes a valid ground for admission of additional evidence.
United India Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Lalita Wd/o Akshay Kumar Chourasiya
Aryan Raj S/o Late Akshay Kumar Chourasiya
Meenakshi D/o Late Akshay Kumar Chourasiya
Nirbhay Kumar Chourasiya
Shri Lalman Chourasiya
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
