Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company vs P. Anitha on 19 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.849 AND 850 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the United Insurance Company Limited, Sangareddy/respondent No.2, challenging different orders dated 03.03.2022 rendered by the same Tribunal i.e. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in different Interlocutory Applications and Original Petitions.
2. Challenge in C.R.P.No.849 of 2022 is the order dated 03.03.2022 that is rendered in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short 'the Tribunal'). Challenge in C.R.P.No.850 of 2022 is the order dated 03.03.2022 that is rendered in I.A.No.10 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2015 by the same Tribunal.
3. M.V.O.P.Nos.159 of 2015 and 102 of 2015 are filed by the respondents/claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of two persons in the vehicular accident occurred on 2 SKS, J C.R.P.Nos.849 and 850 of 2022 29.08.2014. I.A.No.11 of 2022 was filed by the respondents herein, who are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015, under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen their case for adducing further evidence. I.A.No.10 of 2022 was filed by the respondents, who are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2015, under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen their case for adducing further evidence on their behalf. The respondents/claimants sought for reopen of their cases on the ground that the evidence of PW-2, who is an eye witness to the accident, was eschewed as the claimants failed to produce PW-2 for further cross-examination.
4. Both the Interlocutory Applications were allowed through separate orders dated 03.03.2022 by the Tribunal observing that since the evidence of PW-2 was eschewed, it is necessary to permit the claimants to adduce further evidence, which does not amount to filling up lacunas to the case of claimants and no prejudice will be caused to the other side. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.2.
5. Heard Sri D.R.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Insurance Company. None appeared on behalf of respondents/claimants.
3
SKS, J C.R.P.Nos.849 and 850 of 2022
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents/claimants examined PW-2 as an eye witness to the accident and subsequently, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1065 of 2019 for further cross-examination of PW-2 to confront the deposition made by him in the criminal case vide C.C.No.313 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy. The said application was allowed and despite the Tribunal granted several adjournments, PW-2 failed to appear before the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal eschewed his evidence on 08.09.2021.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that PW-2 in collusion with driver and owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 13 D 7623 and Investigating Officer planted Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 13 D 7623 as crime vehicle contrary to crime Scooter bearing No.AP 23 E 7489 in First Information Report as the said Scooter was not having insurance coverage. Learned counsel also submitted that when the matters were posted for arguments, the respondents/claimants filed applications for adducing further evidence on their behalf taking advantage of eschewing the evidence of PW-2 and to fill-up lacunas, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in 4 SKS, J C.R.P.Nos.849 and 850 of 2022 permitting the respondents/claimants to adduce further evidence instead of revoking eschew order dated 08.09.2021 for appearance of PW-2 and it will affect the rights of the revision petitioner and the Tribunal also failed to observe that the respondents/claimants deliberately have not produced PW-2 for further cross-examination. As such, prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the Tribunal.
8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the respondents/claimants have got examined PW-2, who is an eye witness, on their behalf. Later the revision petitioner/Insurance Company filed an application to recall PW-2 for further cross-examination, wherein as PW-2 did not turn up, the Tribunal eschewed the evidence of PW-2. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the Interlocutory Applications filed by the respondents/claimants to adduce further evidence in the Original Petitions, which according to the revision petitioner is injustice.
9. When a witness has not turned up for cross-examination, there is no option for the Tribunal except to eschew the evidence of said witness. The contention of the revision petitioner is that after eschewing the evidence of PW-2, the respondents/claimants 5 SKS, J C.R.P.Nos.849 and 850 of 2022 cannot be permitted to adduce further evidence on their behalf. The said contention is not acceptable. An opportunity has to be given to the respondents/claimants to adduce further evidence, if they so choose to do and it is always open to the revision petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses and elicit the truth. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the orders of the Tribunal and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal.
10. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed without costs confirming the orders dated 03.03.2022 rendered in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015 and I.A.No.10 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
11. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 19.02.2024 svl