Ganga Dutt Bhardwaj vs Fakhr-E- Alam & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3488 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 24th May, 2012

+       MAC.APP. 620/2010

        GANGA DUTT BHARDWAJ               ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate

                       versus


        FAKHR-E- ALAM & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                     Through:          None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 29.05.2010 passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby a Claim Petition u/s 163A preferred by Respondents No. 1 to 6 was allowed awarding a compensation of `3,21,500/- in favour of the Respondents.

2. The only ground of challenge is that the Appellant's plea before the Claims Tribunal was that bus No.DL 1PB-4024 owned by the Appellant did not cause any accident and the liability was wrongly fastened on the Appellant.

3. Issues were framed in the case on 23.10.2009; 26.04.2010 was the first date of hearing fixed for the evidence of the

Respondents No. 1 to 6. On 16.04.2010 affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 6 was filed and the case was adjourned for evidence of the parties on 24.95.2010. On 24.05.2010 evidence of Respondents No. 1 to 6 (the claimants) in the shape of cross-examination of PW-1 was recorded. Statement of the Appellant and the driver (Respondent No.1) before the Claims Tribunal were also recorded. The Claims Tribunal observed that the counsel for the Appellant did not want to lead any further evidence and therefore the evidence was closed. Arguments were heard and the case was listed on 29.05.2010 on which date judgment was passed.

4. Although no list of witnesses has been filed on record by the Appellant, yet in view of the Affidavit filed by the Appellant and the fact that there is no statement of Appellant's counsel on record for closing the evidence, the Appellant must be granted an opportunity to lead evidence.

5. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside.

6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that he wants to examine only one witness i.e. Mr.Ratan Singh from Amber Motor Works, Tikri Border. The case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal with the direction to record the statement of the said witness and to decide the Claim Petition afresh.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on

16.07.2012.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 24, 2012 mr