VENKATESH Vs. T M RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in m. V. C. No. 698 of 1990 sustained head injury and three other simple injuries and the wound certificate is marked at Exh. P3. The petitioner is not examined. But, however one of the co-passengers in the said tempo who is injured is examined and through him Exh. P3 is marked. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not examined.

(2.) THE provisions of Order 18 of Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence does not insist that party should necessarily be examined to prove the case. The party is entitled to prove his case by examining any competent witness who has personal knowledge of the facts. In the instant case, the injured petitioner through whom Exh. P3 is marked is a co-passenger and he had personal knowledge of the accident and injury sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner on his behalf and contents of exh. P3 substantially proves the case of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner had sustained only simple injuries without consequential disabilities. Therefore, whatever evidence let in by the petitioner is convincing. However, in case of grievous injuries where evidence with regard to consequential disabilities is to be established, in such cases, it could be insisted that the petitioner has to examine himself and cannot prove the case by examining any other person. In that view of the matter, whatever evidence let in by the petitioner is just and proper. Dismissal of the petition is bad in law.