RASH NARAYAN SINGH Vs. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated 6 -4 -95 granting interim relief of Rs. 25,000 to the claimant -respondents in Claim case No. 18/94.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the appellant 'slawyer that the impugned order is based on the formal F.I.R. and the Fardbeyan of Ram Chandra Shah, but in none of these documents Jeep number which me with an accident and in which deceased Fulo Shah was travelling, was mentioned. So, the impugned order was passed on the basis of no evidence regarding the involvement of the appellant 'sjeep in the concerned accident which caused the death of Fulo Shah.

(3.) OF course, in a case where the involvement of the vehicle, in question, is denied, there should be prima facie evidence before the Court to pass the order of interim relief, but I find from the lower Court record which was received in this Court that there is evidence of two witnesses, out of whom A.W. 1 was Ram Chandra Sao, on the basis of whose statement the formal F.I.R. Was drawn. Ram Chandra Sao has clearly mentioned the Jeep number in which he and Fulo Shah were travelling and which had caused the accident on account of the negligent and rash driving of the driver. A. W. 2 was also examined who was Om Prakash Sah. This witness was also supported the involvement of the appellant 'sJeep in the concerned accident. Now there is a subsequent development and this Court can take notice of the fact, because remand of the case for fresh consideration in the light of the evidence, if any, would be of no purpose because already there was evidence before the lower Court, of course after passing of the impugned order. So, remand of the case to the lower Court for passing a fresh order would be useless and just by way of killing time and in the meantime the respondents shall be deprived of the interim relief which they are entitled to under the law. As a result of the above discussion, I think that the impugned order need not be set aside.