SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. JUGRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is by the owner and driver of the vehicle who was found to be responsible for the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle was not insured. It was a case of collision between appellants' vehicle and yet another vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. The counsel for the appellants argues that a petition which was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act [for short, 'the Act'] was later amended for a petition under Section 166 of the Act and still later an application for amendment under Section 163A of the Act was moved but it was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. The counsel would argue that the appropriate manner of prosecution of the case would be only under Section 163A of the Act and could not have been permitted to be altered. I find this argument to be untenable, for, the choice is always for the claimants to proceed under Section 163A of the Act or under Section 166 of the Act and if they chose, therefore, to pursue the application for amendment under Section 166 of the Act, the fact that yet another application was moved for treating the application under Section 163A of the Act but had allowed to be withdraw, cannot avail to respondents to contend that the proper remedy would have been under Section 163A of the Act only. That shall be a privilege to the claimants and not for the respondents. I, therefore, reject this first limb of the argument. The further grievance of the appellants is that on 06.05.2011 when the appellants' side was closed, the defendants also gave in writing that there had no evidence and the Court passed such an order closing the evidence of the defendants and proceeded to hear the arguments. The counsel argues that he was under the impression that the Court was going to award compensation against the insurance company of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling and, therefore, they did not chose to let in such evidence. I cannot understand as to how such an inference was possible for either of the parties or the counsel to close their evidence. I find no basis for such a contention, for, there is no preliminary finding by the Court that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was itself responsible for the accident. There is not even a ground urged in the appeal that the Court by its ostensible posture or observation led the appellants to entertain such a belief. What goes in the Court and what is recorded in the Court proceedings must be taken at its face value and if any argument is made contrary to the records, it cannot be entertained. The only procedure to modify the statements made in the Court records would be to apply to the very same Court for review, if the Court's observations are not properly reflected in the Court records. 1 do not find any basis for such a contention that the appellants were given the impression that award would be passed against the insurance company.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks for time to file an affidavit to declare what they thought and how the Court's conduct had let them to believe that they would be exonerated. This is an extraordinary prayer and I cannot allow for such an affidavit to be brought to contradict the Court records or the Court proceedings. I decline the prayer in the manner made by the counsel appearing for the appellants. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.