Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.