SALMABEN IQBAL HALEPOTRA Vs. JAGDISHSINH ANUPSINH JETHVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Dipakkumar D. Prajapati, who submits that M.A.C.P. No.51 of 2017 came to be dismissed for default, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, when actually the matter had become ready and had come for evidence during the period of Covid-19. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has even failed to take note of the fact that the learned Advocate representing the appellant had expired on 31/1/2020 because of Covid-19. It is also submitted that the said fact was not within the knowledge of the appellant and actually the said information would lie with the Court as the Advocate is an officer of the Court. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have informed the claimant about the death of the Advocate or should have proceeded with the matter by recording the evidence by calling for the details from the Investigating Officer under Form 54 and could have decide the matter on merits. The learned Tribunal instead saddled the claimant with cost in the Claim Petition and had closed the right to lead the evidence where actually the matter is of the year 2017. It is further submitted that if the claimant could wait for the learned Tribunal to frame the issues for a long period, then a gracious approach from the side of the Tribunal could be expected to grant time to the claimant/s.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the records of the case. It appears that the learned Tribunal has noted that despite an opportunity being granted, the claimant had failed to step into the witness box, but one more opportunity was granted to lead the evidence failing which the claimant was made liable to deposit the cost and thereafter, it was observed that the claimant has failed to deposit the cost and thereafter on 16/7/2021, the right of the appellant to lead the evidence came to be closed.

(3.) The matter was listed for the evidence of the respondents. The respondents had not produced any evidence and had filed the closing pursis Exhibit 31. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that though sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant, and since no one stepped into the witness box and hence in absence of the evidence of the appellant, the issue No.1 came to be decided in the negative. Consequently the issue No.2 also came to be answered in the negative and the petition came to be dismissed.