SADHNABEN VASANTBHAI NANDA Vs. BHAGIRATHSINH LAKHDEERSINH JHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the present appellant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 14/11/2017passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not able to prove the case. Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that the appellant claimant is an employed lady and comes from a labour class. She was travelling as a pillion rider on Hero Honda Motor-cycle No. GJ-10P-2459 and at about 6.30 p.m. when she was returning from some marriage function from village Naranpur as soon as they reached District Jail road at the same time the Matador bearing Registration No. GJ-3-V-9608 hit the Motorcycle of the claimant, as a result of which sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Hospital Jamnagar as indoor patient from 5/2/2003 to 5/4/2003. Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that issues came to be framed at Exh-32. Mr. Shah submits that the documents were produced at Exh-5 and the claimant's affidavit-in-chief was also marked at Exh-47. The claimant also faced the cross-examination, however, Mr. Shah submits that during the process of adducing evidence, the father of the advocate on record suffered from brain-stroke, and as a result, the advocate could not attend the matter of the claimant and as a result, the right of the claimant of producing of evidence got closed and says that thus on prayer made vide Exh-51, the stage was re-opened. However, as the advocate could not attend the trial, right again was closed. Hence, in absence of evidence on record, the Insurance Company also filed closure pursish at Exh- 54 and 55.

(2.) Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate submitted that the claim petition came to be rejected only on the observation that even after lapse of 14 years, the applicant failed to produce the original medical paper and disability certificate in support of her contention and, therefore, learned tribunal observed that the claimant has failed to prove the issue and on that ground, the claim petition came to be dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Shah, learned advocate placed reliance on the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Chaturbhai Devjibhai, decided on 4/9/2018 in First Appeal No. 2064 of 2018 with Civil Application No. 1 of 2017 and submits that when the advocate of the Insurance Company could not adduce evidence as advocate himself was suffering from throat cancer, the Hon'ble High Court very graciously considered the said ground for remitting the matter and granted opportunity to adduce the evidence for the learned tribunal to decide all the issues on merits without being influenced by any observation made in the order as well as judgment and award.