Allowed

Ramu Ram v. Pappu Singh Ola and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2025CW/10171/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the claimant's writ petition to set aside the Tribunal's orders closing his evidence due to unavoidable absence. The Court directed the Tribunal to grant the claimant an opportunity to adduce evidence upon payment of Rs. 10,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal is directed to grant the claimant an opportunity to adduce evidence subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 cost to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

Ramu Ram Vs Pappu Singh Ola and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:2225]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10171/2007

¶4

Ramuram S/o Hari Khinwaram, Ganeshpura, Via Dakiya Gowati, Police Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar Raj..

¶5

----Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pappu Singh Ola S/o Vidyadhar Ola, Kudali, Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar. Driver Vehicle No. Jeep No. Rj-23-Ua-0069-Tr No. 733

¶8

Keshar Dev Jankhar S/o Gharsiram, Udailal Ki Dhani, Police Station Sadar Sikar, District Sikar. Owner Vehicle No. Jeep No. Rj-23-Ua-0069-Tr No. 733.

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Regional Branch, Near Court, District Sikar Raj. Insurance Company Vehicle No. Jeep No. Rj-23-Ua-0069Tr No. 733

¶10

----Non-claimants

¶11

For Claimant(s)	: Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat
For Non-Claimant(s)	: Mr. Sagar Jindal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶13

Order

¶14

16/01/2025

¶15

This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitionerclaimant (for short ‘the claimant’) against the orders dated 13.11.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for short “the Tribunal”) in motor accident case No. 636/2005, whereby the evidence of the claimant has been closed and the order dated 29.11.2007, whereby the application filed by the claimant for reopening his evidence has also been dismissed.

[2025:RJ-JP:2225]

[CW-10171/2007]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that due to unavoidable circumstances the claimant could not appear before the Tribunal on 13.11.2007. Resultantly, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2007 closed the evidence of the claimant and the matter was fixed for final arguments. After that, learned counsel for the claimant filed an application before the Tribunal for reopening the claimant’s evidence but the Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2007 dismissed the application filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that absence of the claimant for adducing the evidence before the Tribunal was bona fide. So, in the interest of justice, the orders dated 13.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 passed by the Tribunal be set-aside and one more opportunity may be given to the claimant for adducing the evidence before the Tribunal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the non-claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that ample opportunities were given to the claimant for adducing the evidence before the Tribunal but the claimant had not appeared before the Tribunal. So, the Tribunal rightly closed the claimant’s opportunity for adducing the evidence vide its order dated 13.11.2007 and rightly dismissed the claimant’s application.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the nonclaimants.

¶22

It is an admitted position that the claimant could not appear before the Tribunal. So, his evidence was closed by the Tribunal. So, in the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to grant an opportunity to the claimant to adduce the evidence before the

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:2225]

¶24

[CW-10171/2007]

¶25

Tribunal subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the claimant.

¶26

Accordingly, petition filed by the claimant is allowed. The orders dated 13.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 passed by the Tribunal are set-aside. The Tribunal is directed to grant only an opportunity to the claimant to adduce his evidence before the Tribunal, subject to deposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the claimant with Rasthan State Legal Services Authority and on producing the receipt in this regard before the Tribunal on or before next date of hearing, failing which no opportunity shall be granted by the Tribunal to the claimant to adduce the evidence.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶28

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶29

Tahir/41

Ramu Ram v. Pappu Singh Ola and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Ram v. Pappu Singh Ola and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mohan S/O Prabhu Lal Vs Shiv Kumar

Abdul and Ors. Vs Badlu Ram and Ors.

Sanni Devi W/O Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Sharma S/O Late Shri Omprakash Sharma Vs Executive Officer

Laxmi Swaroop Mathur S/O Jyoti Swaroop Mathur Vs Smt. Asha Malu W/O Shri Govind Das Malu

Jaggi and Ors. Vs Ram Kishan and Ors.