Nafe Singh vs Naresh Kumar
2012 Latest Caselaw 2063 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Reserved on: 23rd March, 2012
                                         Pronounced on:26th March, 2012
+       CM (M) 190/2012

        NAFE SINGH                            ..... Petitioner
                              Through:   Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate
                     versus

        NARESH KUMAR               ..... Respondent
                     Through: Nemo.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Petitioner assails the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby an application dated 03.09.2011 (in fact the application is dated 01.09.2011 and was moved on 03.09.2011) seeking leave of the Court to produce additional evidence was dismissed.

2. A Claim Petition seeking compensation of ` 12,00,000/- was filed by the Petitioner for having suffered injuries in an accident while he was travelling in a tempo bearing No.DL-1LB-5252. It is important to note that the accident is alleged to have taken place on 18.09.1996.

3. The Claim Petition was filed on 10.03.2005 i.e. almost after a period of nine years of the accident. The Petitioner was

completely silent as to why it took that much amount of time in filing the Claim Petition. Even after nine years in the Annexure filed along with the Claim Petition, where the Petitioner claimed permanent disability, the percentage of the alleged permanent disability was left blank. He filed his Affidavit by way of his evidence (which he now says was sworn by him when he was under the bout of fever). He appears to have sworn his Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A on 23.08.2008 but the same was filed before the Claims Tribunal only on 12.11.2009. The Petitioner was cross-examined on that very day and the case was adjourned for 19.11.2009. The evidence of the third Respondent (Insurance Company) was completed on 04.06.2011 and the case was adjourned for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 16.07.2011 and the case was adjourned for pronouncement of the judgment on 28.07.2011. On that day and on subsequent dates, adjournments were sought for filing some case laws and in the meanwhile on 03.09.2011, the instant application was moved.

4. In the impugned order, the Claims Tribunal observed that the Petitioner was completely silent as to where he was sitting (while travelling in the tempo) at the time of the accident. Even, in the Affidavit he was silent.

5. In the Claim Petition, the Petitioner (who was a mason) stated that on 18.09.1996, the Petitioner picked up a tempo on hire basis and loaded his bag of tools after completing his work at

Adarsh Nagar. It would be the subject matter of a decision before the Claims Tribunal whether a person carrying tools in a bag becomes an owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner is delaying and consistently improving his case. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was justified in declining him permission to lead additional evidence by setting up a new case.

6. Reliance is placed on Madhubhai Amthalal v. Amthalal Nanalal & Ors., AIR (34) 1947 Bombay 156, Om Parkash v. Sarupa & Ors., AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 157, and Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj, AIR 1984 Delhi 439, to canvas that the power of the Courts under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC are very wide and thus this power can be exercised at any stage.

7. There is no dispute about the proposition of law. Application for additional evidence in this case, as stated by me hereinabove, is not bona fide but is only for improving upon the case after the arguments had been concluded.

8. There is no illegality in the impugned order so as to necessitate any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is rather an abuse of the process of the Court; the same is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 26, 2012 vk