SUDHIR JAIN Vs. H P BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.2.1980 made by Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Delhi, awarding a sum of Rs.8,200.00 in favour of respondent No.2 and against the appellant. Shri Hari Har Kumar, respondent No.2, filed a petition under section 110(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the appellant and General Insurance Society Ltd. claiming compensation amounting to Rs.32,000.00 on account of the injury received by him in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of a scooter by the appellant. In the claim petition, the appellant was respondent No.l. The petition was contested by the appellant On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

(2.) On Issue No.l, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the appellant/respondent No.l. The General Insurance Company who was respondent No.2 in the petition was held not to be liable to pay any amount The compensation was assessed at Rs.8,200.00. Feeling aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. It may be stated that none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 at the time of hearing of this appeal, despite the fact that the matter remained on the Regular Board for a number of dates.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Bhandari, appearing for the appellant was that the order of the Tribunal dated 13.2.1980 by which the evidence of the appellant was closed, was without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It was contended that on 13.12.1979, the case was adjourned to 25.1.1980 for recording the evidence of the appellant. On 25.1.1980, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The Reader of the Court fixed 13.2.1980 for recording evidence of the appellant. On 13.2.1980 the court passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.l. Mr. J.L-Wasan for respondent No steps have been taken by respondent No.l to summon the witnesses. Accordingly, evidence of respondent No.l is closed. Argu- ments heard. To come up after lunch for orders." Mr. Bhandari submitted that the dider passed on 13.Z 1980 was without jurisdiction for the reason that on 25.1.1980 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the Reader of the Court could not fix 13.Z1980 for recording evidence of me appellant/respondent No.l. Reader of the Court had no power or jurisdiction to fix a date for ^hearing'. As such the proceedings X taken on 13.Z1980 were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The Tribunal could not close the evidence of me appellant. The appellant was not bound to produce his evidence on 13.Z1980 as it was not a day to which the hearing of tee petition was adjourned. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of mis court reported as Savitri Devi Vs. M/s. Public Witnessan Chand; 1978 RLR 350 wherein it was held as under: