Madhya Pradesh High Court
United Inia Insurance Company Ltd. Thr. vs Smt. Shalini Soni on 17 January, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No.144/2020
(United India Insurance Company vs. Smt. Shalini Soni & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated :17/01/2020
Shri R.V. Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed against the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by 16 th
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case
No.311/2016.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short
are that the respondents No.1 to 6 have filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the deceased Sanjay Soni had died in a vehicular accident. It appears that one Gajendra Pal (PW-1) had claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the incident. However, when he was examined in criminal case as PW-1, then he turned hostile. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act for bringing the certified copy of the evidence of Gajendra Pal which was recorded in Criminal Trial No.11574/2015 RTC. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 11.12.2019 has rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings are irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the motor accident claim cases.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.144/2020 cannot blow hot and cool because their own witness had turned hostile in criminal proceedings and now before the Claims Tribunal he has claimed himself to be an eyewitness and thus the application filed by the petitioner for bringing the deposition sheet of Gajendra Pal which was recorded in the criminal trial is necessary.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It appears that one Gajendra Pal was cited as a prosecution witness by the prosecution in Case No.11574/2015 RTC as an eyewitness of the incident. His evidence was recorded in the criminal case on 18.3.2016 and he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Thereafter, said Gajendra Pal filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC before the Claims Tribunal and claimed that he had witnessed the incident. Gajendra Pal was cross-examined in detail on 11.9.2018 and 18.3.2019 but no question was put to him with regard to his earlier evidence given in the criminal case.
6. Thereafter, an application under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed, by which the petitioner had sought liberty to file the certified copy of the deposition of Gajendra Pal which was recorded in a criminal trial.
7. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not aware of the evidence which was given by Gajendra Pal in the criminal case, therefore, no question could be put 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.144/2020 in his cross-examination and the copy of the deposition sheet could also not be filed at the earliest. However, immediately after getting the information, the certified copy of the deposition sheet was obtained and it was filed before the Claims Tribunal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. I have gone through the contents of the application filed under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the entire application, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner was not aware of the evidence which was given by Gajendra Pal in the criminal trial. It is merely mentioned that the certified copy of the said deposition sheet was received on 22.8.2019.
10. From the said averment it cannot be ascertained as to on what date, the petitioner came to know about the evidence given by Gajendra Pal in the criminal trial. Thus it is clear that the petitioner itself has filed an application under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act in a most negligent and casual manner. The petitioner has not taken care of to plead the necessary averments in the application. If the application filed under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed, then the petitioner would further file an application for further cross-examination of Gajendra Pal which would delay the proceedings. Thus it is clear that the petitioner was not only negligent in cross-examining Gajendra Pal but was also 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.144/2020 negligent and casual in drafting the application filed under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to suffer the consequence of its own negligence. As no perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Claims Tribunal by rejecting the application filed under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by 16 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.311/2016 is hereby affirmed.
11. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2020.01.21
13:36:05 +05'30'