The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s refusal to grant permission for second additional evidence application. The Court held that repeated applications to fill procedural lapses are not meritorious after the party was already given liberty to produce evidence for the first time.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.5943 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 8.2.2010
Kewal Krishan
....Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
C.M.No.24220-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
C.R.No.5943 of 2009 (O&M)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.8.2009 by which his prayer for adducing additional evidence before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been declined.
Prior thereto the proceedings before the Tribunal qua the accident in question had been concluded and the petitioner was burdened with the liability to satisfy the award in view of the findings that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. This led to filing of FAO No.4945 of 2007 in which the petitioner contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and a report to this effect was placed on record as Annexure A/1. The appeal was accepted in the following terms :-
C.R.No.5943 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
“Consequently, the appeal is accepted subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs which shall be deposited in the High Court Advocates Welfare Fund. The impugned award dated 18.8.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur for fresh decision. The appellant would submit application for adducing additional evidence and the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the matter after taking into consideration the additional evidence, if so produced, in accordance with law.”
The appellant was granted the permission to move an application for adducing additional evidence which he did and which was allowed on 28.1.2009. The appellant was granted the liberty to produce whatever evidence he wanted to produce in support of his plea that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence. Thereafter the petitioner moved another application again for adducing additional evidence with a plea that he wanted to examine Sukhchain Singh, Gurjant Singh and Ahlmad of the Court besides himself which application has now been declined by the Tribunal vide the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside as it prejudicially affects his case.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the instant petition. Earlier, as observed, the matter had been concluded by the Tribunal
C.R.No.5943 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
leading to filing of an FAO by the petitioner on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence which he would produce if an opportunity is granted to him. This prayer was accepted and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for additional evidence, which he did and the application was also allowed by the Tribunal. The petitioner had the option to produce whatever material he wanted to produce in support of his plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence. The prayer for additional evidence can be granted only in exceptional circumstances if the person seeking to adduce such additional evidence satisfies the court that it is essential for the just disposal of the case and that despite due diligence he could not produce such evidence. The intent of this provision can never be interpreted to mean that repeated applications can be filed to fill up whatever chinks appeared during the course of proceedings due to the lapse on the part of the person seeking to adduce such evidence. The petitioner was conscious of the fact that his whole case hinged on the validity of the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle and yet he chose to adopt the path of laxity rather then to show vigilance and that too after this court had granted indulgence of making an application for production of additional evidence. The Tribunal has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
8.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal committed an error in denying permission to examine witnesses Sukhchain Singh, Gurjant Singh, and Ahmad on a second application for additional evidence.
Whether a judgment-debtor can file repeated applications for affidavits to fill gaps caused by their own lack of vigilance after having been granted earlier relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kewal Krishan
Paramjit Kaur and others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
