MUKTI CHATTERJEE Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10637-CII-2011 1. Applicant seeks permission to produce the medical prescriptions, vouchers for medicines purchased, tests/scans performed and an ambulance service voucher of Rs.900.00 for transport from Pushpanjali Hospital to Max Hospital, Delhi (Annexures A-1 to A-20) aggregating Rs.1,84,259.17 in connection with her treatment. It is stated that same were given to her counsel but inadvertently could not be exhibited alongwith other documents before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short hereafter 'the Tribunal').

(2.) Under Sec. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal/Court has to hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. Sec. 169 of the Act provides that in holding such inquiry, Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. To my mind, in such cases, the Tribunal is not bound to follow the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) In Chapala Chinnabbayi v. Naralasetti Anusuyama, AIR 2006 AP 42 (DB), it was held that the High Court may permit a party to adduce additional evidence even in Second Appeal, provided if the additional evidence is in the interest of justice.