LATA DEVI Vs. ROSHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29.7.2010 whereby the evidence of the Petitioner has been closed and the case was fixed for Respondent 'sevidence. The petition arises out of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Petitioner is the claimant before the learned Trial Court. Nine petitions were consolidated vide order dated 5.11.2009 and were being tried together and the issues were framed on the same date. Thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the Petitioner on 19.12.2009, but no steps were taken. Thereafter on 8.3.2010 three witnesses were present and two were examined. It appears that list of witnesses was not filed. Thereafter on 24.4.2010 three more witnesses were examined and the matter adjourned to 17.5.2010. On 17.5.2010 the Presiding Officer of the MACT passed an order that the matters be fixed before some other Court, since he did not want to hear these cases. Thereafter the matter was transferred to the MACT -I and the case was then fixed for evidence on 3.7.2010, but steps were not taken. On 29.7.2010 the impugned order was passed. However, I find from the record that on 23.8.2010 eight witnesses of the Respondents were examined and the matter was listed for arguments. In the meantime the present petition was filed and the record of the case was called for.

(2.) IT is more than apparent that the Petitioners have been given more than reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence. However, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the Petitioners are the injured or heirs of the deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident and in such a case just because the counsel did not care to file the list of witnesses, the Petitioners should not be non -suited and the petitions decided against them. As pointed out above, some witnesses were examined, but the other were not examined due to the fact that no list of witnesses had been filed. Now a list of witnesses had been filed, but the list consists of 49 witnesses. I am constrained to observe that the manner in which the matter has been conducted before the learned Trial Court by the learned Counsel leaves much to be desired. It appears that the counsel without even examining as to what witnesses are necessary or not has just filed list of 49 witnesses. The accident in question is not denied. The names of the persons who died are admitted to be correct. The only facts which are required to be proved are the negligence and the income of the deceased and in case of injured claimants the Petitioners were only required to produce the medical evidence to show the nature of injury and disability and the expenses they have incurred.

(3.) THE parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the Learned MACT on 28.3.2011. The learned MACT shall fix a date in the first week of April when learned Counsel for the claimants shall satisfy the MACT as to which witnesses are necessary to be examined. The learned MACT shall ensure that only those witnesses are summoned whose examination is necessary for the just decision of the case. In case there are a large number of witnesses, the MACT may fix two or three days in the month of April, 2011 for their examination and the second opportunity be given in the month of May, 2011. Since the Petitioner has been given fresh opportunity to lead evidence, the Respondents can again lead defence evidence after the closure of the evidence of the Petitioner. This order is passed subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall pay Rs. 3000/ - to the Respondents as costs i.e. Rs. 1500/ - to each set of Respondents on or before the date fixed for appearance before the learned Trial Court. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.