Rajasthan High Court
Ramgopal vs Rajendra Kumar Beniwal And Others on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 2) [CMA-4873/2016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4873/2016
Ramgopal Saini S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Saini, R/o Pathano
Ka Bas Tan Amarsar Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajendra Kumar Beniwal S/o Shri Rampal, R/o Bobadi Via
Gadhwadi Police Station Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura
District Jaipur. Driver Di Jeep Mahendra No. Rj-14-Ua
4693
2. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai Jat, R/o
Brajpura Post Bobadi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur.
Owner Di Jeep Mahendra No. Rj-14-Ua 4693
3. Phoolchand S/o Shri Bharatmal, R/o Letkabas Police
Station Shahpura District Jaipur. Power Of Attorney
Holder Di Jeep Mahendra No. Rj-14-Ua 4693
4. National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional
Manager-I, Paanch Batti, Mi Road, Jaipur. Insurance
Company Of Di Jeep Mahendra No. Rj-14-Ua 4693
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
21/12/2021
1. This is a civil misc. appeal preferred against the order passed
by the Ld. MACT dated 22.06.2016 whereby the claim petition was
dismissed on the grounds of the appellant not getting his evidence
recorded.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
adjournment was granted on a cost of Rs.400/- on account of the
appellant having suffered loss of eye sight and he is under
(2 of 2) [CMA-4873/2016]
treatment but he could not appear on the next date also. Learned
counsel submits that on the next date he appeared but Ld. MACT
did not allow his evidence to be recorded and passed the
judgment rejecting the claim on 22.06.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that several
opportunities were given and Ld. MACT has rightly rejected the
claim petition.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record
from the order sheet dated 20.06.2016, it appears that court
noticed of the appellant suffering from illness and gave a next
date for recording of evidence of 22.06.2016. The appellant was
present on the next date.
5. However, as the evidence was not allowed to be recorded on
the ground that he had not produced any medical certificate of his
not being able to appear on the earlier dates and on the same
day, Ld. MACT proceeded to reject the claim petition.
6. In the opinion of this court, the approach is too hasty and in
the matters relating to claim petitions, a pragmatic approach
ought to be effected and the strict provisions of CPC are not
required to be adhered, moreso when the claimant is present in
the case, there was no occasion not to record his evidence.
7. The order passed by the Ld. MACT is accordingly set aside.
The civil misc. appeal is allowed.
8. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. MACT to decide the
claim on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
months.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Karan/44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
