RAHULBHAI M GODADHARA Vs. VIJAY MAFATLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a Motor Accident Claims case the petitioner claimant preferred an application to summon a witness and to allow him to be examined on his behalf. The application was submitted at a late stage that is at the stage of the argument of the case. This has been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No. 3) Ahmedabad. The decision of the Tribunal below Exhibit 128 in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 225 of 1981 is challenged by filing the present Civil Revision application.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the original claimant who has suffered some injury on account of an accident and for the purposes of recovery of compensation he filed the aforesaid claim application before the Tribunal. It appears that after the evidence of the petitioner was over and after the other side filed pursis to the effect that it did not wish to lead any oral evidence and the date on which the matter was fixed for hearing of the arguments of the parties the petitioner submitted a application Exhibit 128 and prayed that a witness named Shri J. P Sehgal Public Relations Officer of the Gujarat Small Industries Corpo- ration be summoned and be allowed to be examined as a witness for the petitioner. The Tribunal rejected this application inter alia on the ground that the application was given at a very late stage. Another ground which weighed with the Tribunal for rejecting the application was that certificate Exhibit 16 referred to in the application was not required to be proved and the contents thereof were already proved.

(3.) Before rejecting the application the Tribunal ought to have posed the questions if the application is granted is it likely to cause any prejudice the to other side ? Is the examination of the witness necessary for arriving at a just decision of the case ? From this angle the question has not been examined at all It must be stated that when the counsel for the respondent was asked as to whether any prejudice is likely to be caused if the witness is allowed to be examined at this stage he candidly submitted that there would not be any prejudice caused to the other side. Even on merits it appears that had the Tribunal examined the question from this angle it would have come to the conclusion that the other side was not likely to be prejudiced at all if the witness was allowed to be examined. Unless the delay is likely to cause prejudice to the other side mere delay in submitting an application cannot and should not have any bearing while arriving at a decision on such applications.