DHARAMVIR SINGH Vs. BRAHMJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of injuries allegedly suffered by him on 14.11.1989 in a road accident. His claim petition was dismissed by the learned MACT for want of proper prosecution vide orders dated 27.7.1998 in as much as the appellant had failed to produce evidence in support of his claim inspite of repeated opportunities given to him. The application for review of the orders was also dismissed vide orders dated 16.12.1999. The appellant challenges the orders dated 27.7.1998 by which his evidence was closed and the petition was dismissed as well as orders dated 16.12.1999 by which his review application was rejected.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.

(3.) A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the appellant-petitioner had filed his claim petition on 14.5.1990. Issues were framed on 17.8.1993 and thereafter the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Till 27.7.1998, when the petitioner evidence was closed and his petition was dismissed, the appellant-petitioner had examined only two formal witnesses. The learned MACT observed that the appellant-petitioner had failed to produce evidence in support of his claim inspite of ten opportunities given to him. A perusal of the order sheets however reveals that actually only 5 opportunities were available to the appellant/petitioner for leading his evidence and not ten as observed by the learned Tribunal in as much as between 27.10.1995 to 8.1.1997 no Presiding Officer was available and the matter was being adjourned from time to time by the Reader of the Court. The dates fixed by the Reader for production of evidence or the adjournments given by the Reader on the dates on which the Presiding Officer was not available could not be treated as effective dates for production of evidence.