ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED Vs. DHRATIBEN RAGHUBHAI RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the MAC Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch in MAC Petition No.35 of 2006 below Exhibit 18 whereby the petitioner's request to cross-examine the original claimant and his witnesses on the aspect of income and age of the deceased is rejected.

(2.) The aforesaid MAC petition has been filed by the respondent for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident which occurred on 13.12.2005. She subsequently filed petition for obtaining compensation of Rs.4,89,500/-. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the present petitioner submitted an application at Exhibit 18 seeking permission of the Tribunal to cross-examine the claimant and her witnesses on the aspects of age and income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the said request on the ground that the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimant is entitled to get compensation according to the structured formula given in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act and in view of the decision reported in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Chhintarbhai Simabahi, 2003 ACJ 839 the insurance company does not have a right of cross-examination.

(3.) Mr Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and it is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. In his submission, the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the claimant and her witnesses on the aspect of age and the income of the deceased and not beyond that. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Hansrajbhai V Kodala, 2001 5 SCC 175 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda, 2004 5 SCC 385. He has also placed reliance on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21.3.2007 rendered in Special Civil Application No.27031 of 2006. The respondent is served but she has chosen not to remain present either personally or through her advocate.