[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Abhishek Rajan Ranip (Panangat) vs Sunitaben Wd/O Decd. Rajubhai Paulbhai ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16329/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16329 of 2025
==========================================================
ABHISHEK RAJAN RANIP (PANANGAT)
Versus
SUNITABEN WD/O DECD. RAJUBHAI PAULBHAI KHRISTI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY L PANDAV(3660) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH B DESAI(1216) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for an
appropriate writ/ direction directing to quash and set aside the
impugned orders dated 10.10.2025 passed below Exh.47 i.e.
Witness Summons application as well as order dated 03.10.2025
(Annexure-A Colly) passed below Exh.55 i.e. Witness Summons
Application passed by the learned 3 rd Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Petlad in MACP No.71/2019.
[2.0] Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and
perusing the record, it appears that the present petitioner is
original respondent No.2 i.e. the owner of Yamaha Motorcycle
bearing No.GJ-1-ED-559 and opponent No.2 in MACP No.71 of
2019 (Old MACP No.1287/2010 & 483/2016), which is pending
before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Petlad.
The alleged accident took place in the year 2009 and claim
petition was filed in the year 2010 pursuant to which the
claimants filed MACP No.1287/2010 in connection with which the
opponents were duly served and they appeared before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16329/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
concerned Tribunal at Kheda. As the learned Tribunal, at Kheda
was not having jurisdiction, matter was transferred on
10.10.2016 to Anand and matter was renumbered as MACP
No.483/2016. Thereafter, the claimants preferred an amendment
application as their residential address was changed and
subsequently, once again, the matter was transferred to the
Court of learned Tribunal, at Petlad and renumbered as MACP
No.71/2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.11.2019, the learned
Tribunal passed an order below Exh.5 and deleted the opponent
No.1 - driver of motorcycle. As opponent No.2 remained absent
before the learned Tribunal, an ex parte order was passed on
12.03.2021 against which an application under Order IX Rule 13
of the CPC being MACMA No.72/2021 came to be filed for
restoration of original claim petition bearing MACP No.71/2019,
which was allowed on 25.11.2022 and matter was restored to its
original file subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the amount
of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal in MACP
No.71/2019. In the pending proceeding, the petitioner preferred
an application Exh.43 under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 5 of
the CPC for framing suggested issues in the main claim petition,
which is till date pending.
[2.1] Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
had also filed an application Exh.47 requesting to issue summons
to two witnesses namely (1) Investigating Officer, Sarkhej Police
Station, Ahmedabad and (2) Maheshbhai Karshanbhai Marwadi.
The learned Tribunal has been pleased to issue summons subject
to payment of bhattha allowance of Rs.1000/- to the witnesses.
Witness No.2 namely Maheshbhai Marwadi remained present
before the learned Tribunal while the Witness No.1 i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16329/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Investigating Officer of Sarkhej Police Station was not found. As
the Investigating Officer has filed summary which is produced at
Exh.20, fresh summons was issued considering the fact that the
said witness is not required to be examined. Another application
Exh.55 was filed for issuance of witness summons to the Medical
Officer which was also dismissed.
[2.2] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders
passed below Exh.47 and Exh.55, the petitioner has approached
this Court.
[3.0] In aforesaid background, if we peruse the record, it appears
that one witness is already examined. So far as another witness
i.e. Investigating Officer is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
assigned the reason that Investigating Officer is not necessary a
witness to be examined as the matter which has arisen from an
accident dated 30.06.2009, is pending since 2009 and 'A'
summary is filed on 08.01.2010 and the said report is already
produced on the record. Hence, in absence of any relevance or
importance for the Investigating Officer to be examined, the
learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the
application Exh.47 to re-issue summons is filed by the petitioner
only with a view to protract the litigation and to delay the
proceeding. Hence, the application Exh.47 has rightly been
dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Considering the aforesaid fact,
the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the
said application Exh.47 as presence of Investigating Officer is not
required.
[3.1] In a proceeding under the MV Act, if the petitioner wants to
prove the case as regards negligence then the driver of offending
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16329/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
vehicle is required to be examined and his presence is also
secured or procured by the present petitioner himself. Once the
Investigating Officer has filed 'A' summary, question does not
arise to examine the Investigating Officer as report is already on
record. Present petitioner is the owner and there is no insurance
company. Hence, it is the petitioner who has to establish or raise
the defence about the ownership. So far as the issues to be
framed by the learned Tribunal in MACP proceeding is concerned,
the learned Tribunal while rendering the judgment has to frame
points/issues for determination and to give answer qua
negligence and thereafter, quantum on settled principles of law
and hence, no any other witness is required to be examined.
[3.2] So far as application Exh.55 for issuance of witness
summons is concerned, the deceased expired due to the
accidental injuries however, prior to that, for 7 days, the
deceased was under treatment. Hence, the witness who is sought
to be summoned by application Exh.55 has only conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased and post-mortem report is already
on record. Hence, to prove the factum of death of deceased or
any dispute, it is for the claimants to prove the same and there is
no need to record any statement of the doctor who has
conducted the autopsy of the deceased and therefore, the
learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application Exh.55.
[4.0] Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of considered
opinion that the alleged accident took place in the year 2009 and
thereafter, the matter is transferred from one Court to another
Court and now the matter is kept for pronouncement of the
judgment tomorrow and at 11th hour present petition is filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16329/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
the petitioner with ulterior motive to protract the litigation
rather to defend himself or to raise proper defence before the
learned Tribunal.
[5.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the witness
i.e. Doctor who conducted autopsy of the deceased is not
necessary and is not required to be called for examination.
Hence, no case is made out to exercise powers under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the petition
stands dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
