BANWARILAL BHUKAR Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 05.10.2006 and 13.11.2006. In the claim petition filed by the petitioner, he led his evidence. It was closed as no other evidence was to be produced. The petitioner then made an application to lead evidence as few documents could not be produced though relevant to the claim. The MACT dismissed the application. It is stated that only on one day, the evidence of the petitioner was recorded and on the same day, it was closed. The documents relevant to the claim could not be submitted. For that reason, the Tribunal should have given one chance to the petitioner to lead remaining evidence to support his claim.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner himself submitted that no evidence is to be led and accordingly order dated 05.10.2006 was passed. The petitioner cannot be called again to lead evidence. If at all one chance is given to lead additional evidence, then it should be by imposing cost and with the clarification that the Insurance Company would not be liable to the interest for the intervening period starting from 5.10.2006 till the date of judgment, if liability is fastened.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the parties and find that petitioner was given chance to lead evidence. His statements were recorded. The evidence was closed as no other evidence was to be led by the petitioner. He realized the mistake as documents to support the claim petition were not submitted. Prayer to lead evidence was not accepted looking to the fact aforesaid. However, I find that the documents could not be submitted to support the claim. The only one date is required to submit the documents. It is to substantiate the oral statement. In view of the above, the petitioner is given one chance to lead further evidence for which one date may be fixed by the MACT. In case additional evidence is not produced on the aforesaid date, it would be treated as closed. The petitioner would be liable to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Insurance Company and taking note of facts that stay order was passed by this court on the request of the petitioner, the Insurance Company would not be liable to interest since 05.10.2006 till the date of this judgment, if liability of compensation is determined against it. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.