MAHESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. KALU RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lack of proper assistance by the learned counsel representing the parties, and inept handling of the proceedings by the Tribunal, have led to unnecessary confusion compelling one of the respondents to approach this court through the petition at hand.

(2.) A claim petition was filed in 2009 under Ss. 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the legal heirs of Naresh Kumar seeking compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident on 15.05.2008 impleading the petitioner herein as the second respondent, describing him as the registered owner of the offending vehicle which was involved in the said accident. The petitioner herein submitted his written statement on 12.05.2009, inter alia, stating that the vehicle had already been sold to one Mohd. Nafees Khan on 07.05.2008, i.e., before the accident. During the inquiry, the petitioner filed his affidavit in evidence on 05.01.2013 whereupon the matter was adjourned to 02.03.2013 for his cross -examination thereupon as also for the evidence of the insurance company. Presumably taking note of the said pleadings and the affidavit, the Tribunal, by order dated 27.04.2013 impleaded the said Mohd. Nafees Khan as fourth respondent in the claim petition directing issuance of notice to him. The said (fourth) respondent was served and even put in appearance to be given time to file reply. Since no reply was forthcoming, in spite of several opportunities, the right to file reply on behalf of the said fourth respondent was closed on 19.04.2014 and the matter adjourned for respondent's evidence/final arguments to be heard on 17.05.2014. On the said date, on the request of the insurance company, the matter was adjourned for RE (respondent's evidence), without the Tribunal ascertaining from the petitioner, who was present in person, as to status of his evidence.

(3.) The matter remained hanging fire at the afore -stated stage till 06.04.2015, when the insurance company submitted through counsel that it did not wish to lead any evidence. The petitioner was again present with counsel but the Tribunal would not ask him as to the status of his evidence and, by order dated 06.04.2015 case was adjourned to 03.06.2015 for final arguments.