KAMALAM Vs. KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the claimants in MVC 18/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District Judge, Bangalore. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application I. A. No. 13 is filed by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning certain documents from the custody of the Court of JMFC, Nelamangala and also from the Nelamangala police so as to establish the fact that the vehicle in question is insured with the 2nd respondent. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the said application on 14 -7 -2003 pursuant to Annexure A on the ground that it is always open for the petitioner to produce the certified copy.

(2.) I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Apparently, the request made under the application is for summoning certain documents from the custody of the JMFC Court, Nelamangala and also from the Nelamangala police. This application was necessitated by the fact that a specific defence is taken at fag end of trial that the vehicle in question is not insured. Apparently, an application was made on an earlier occasion but the Nelamangala Police have not issued the said required report. Annexure E is the application and Annexure G are some of the documents, which are supplied to petitioners. However, a perusal of Annexure G does not disclose that any information is given regarding the vehicle being insured with the 2nd respondent. Taking into consideration that this claim is initiated by the legal representative of the deceased for recovery of certain amount, I am of the view that the learned tribunal ought to have accepted the said application.

(3.) THE application I. A. No. 13 filed by the claimant stands allowed.