Sachin Ravindran vs Mr. Naeem & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2862 Del

8
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +       MAC.APP.No.105/2009


                                  Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009
%

      SACHIN RAVINDRAN                    ..... Appellant
                   Through : Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.

                       versus

      MR. NAEEM & OTHERS                 ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv.
                              for R - 1 and 2.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                       Yes
        reported in the Digest?

                           JUDGMENT (Oral)

MAC.APP. No.105/2009 and CM No.2131/2009

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby the claim petition was dismissed on the

ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the

negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

driver of the offending truck appeared in the witness box as

R1W1 on 26th August, 2008 but he could not be cross-

examined by the learned counsel for the appellant who had

noted down a wrong date and, therefore, could not appear

before the learned Tribunal on 26th August, 2008. However,

learned counsel for the appellant filed an application dated

30th August, 2008 before the learned Tribunal for recalling of

R1W1 for cross-examination and the learned Tribunal fixed

the said application for 2nd September, 2008. The learned

counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned

Tribunal passed the impugned award on 1st October, 2008

without disposing of the appellant's application on 2nd

September, 2008 and, therefore, the impugned award may

be set aside and case may be remanded back to the learned

Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not

dispute the fact that the impugned award has been passed

without disposing of the appellant's application dated 30 th

August, 2008 for recalling the R1W1 for cross-examination.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the

impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is

remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider the

appellant's application dated 30th August, 2008 for recalling

R1W1 for cross-examination.

5. If the appellant's application dated 30th August, 2008 is

allowed, the appellant shall be entitled to cross-examine

R1W1. The learned Tribunal shall also permit the parties to

lead further evidence on the issues involved and shall pass a

fresh order in accordance with law.

6. The CM No.2131/2009 and the appeal are allowed.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 26th August, 2009.

8. The LCR be send back immediately.

9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for both the parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

JULY 27, 2009 mk