Rajasthan High Court

Guddi Bai And Ors vs Sitaram Meghwal And Ors on 21 January, 2022

Bench: Sameer Jain

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8039/2018

1.     Guddi Bai Wife Of Late Shri Satya Narayan
2.     Deepa Daughter Of Late Shri Satya Narayan
3.     Man Mohan Alias Manvendra Son Of Late Shri Satya
       Narayan
4.     Deeksha Daughter Of Late Shri Satya Narayan
5.     Ishant Son Of Late Shri Satya Narayan
6.     Panna Lal Son Of Shri Modu Lal
7.     Gopali Bai Wife Of Shri Panna Lal, No. 2 To 5 Minors
       Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Guddi
       Bai Wife Of Late Shri Satya Narayan, Aged 36 Years. All
       By Caste Meena Residents Of Village Patoliya, Tehsil
       Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.     Sitaram Meghwal Son Of Shri Gopal Lal, By Caste
       Meghwal, Resident Of Village Akhed, Tehsil And District
       Bundi Raj.
2.     Ram Ratan Nagar Son Of Shri Gugariya, By Caste Nagar
       Dhakad, Resident Of Karad Ka Bargha, Tehsil And District
       Bundi Raj.
3.     H.d.f.c.     Irgo    General       Insurance          Company     Limited,
       Regional     Office,     Upasana        Tower,       Subhash    Marg,   C-
       Scheme, Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)           :   Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)           :   Mr. Virendra Agrawal



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN


                            Judgment/Order

Reserved on                :04/01/2022

Pronounced on              :21/01/2022




                                          (2 of 6)               [CW-8039/2018]

1. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated

15.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bundi in MAC No.247/2012 by which application filed by the

respondent No.3 for taking documents on record has been allowed

on cost and the petitioner has knocked doors of this court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners had filed a claim

petition before the learned Tribunal in the year 2012 stating

therein that on 25.01.2012 in evening at 7.30 PM an accident took

place at Bundi-Bambori road near Kishanpura resulting in death of

Satya Narayan i.e. husband of petitioner no.1, father of petitioners

no.2 to 5 and son of petitioners no.5 and 6.

3. Evidence of the petitioners in the said case was closed on

18/10/2014 and when the case was fixed for evidence of

respondents, initially no witness was examined but later on, on

different dates, certain applications were filed by the respondent-

Insurance Company to delay the proceedings. The said

applications were dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the

matter was fixed for final arguments.

4. On 16.03.2017, arguments were heard in part as time was

sought by the respondent-Insurance Company. On 13.12.2017,

one more application was filed by the respondent-Insurance

Company to take documents of the criminal case on record. Reply

to this application was filed by the petitioners.

5. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2018 allowed

the said documents to be brought on record subject to payment of

cost of Rs. 3,000/- looking to the relevancy and importance of the

documents.

(3 of 6) [CW-8039/2018]

6. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioners

have referred this writ petition and argued that only in order to

delay the proceedings, criminal record has been presented by

virtue of the application which is allowed on cost by the learned

Tribunal which is not relevant, not legal and sets wrong

precedence and contrary to the Apex Court judgment rendered in

N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors.: 1980,

SCC 457. The reliance was placed on para 2 of the said judgment

which is reproduced as under:-

"2. The facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on a trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an overhanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensured but the acused-driver was acquitted on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of Got. The Accidents Claims Tribunal, which tried the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, came to the conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about the dangerous overhanging wire ahead, the rash driver sped towards the lethal spit. Some lost their lives instantly : several lost their limbs likewise. The High Court, after examining the materials, concluded:

We therefore sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of RW 1 (driver) and consequently the appellant is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under Section 304-A, IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps, a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to reopen the holdings on culpability and compensation."

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the

(4 of 6) [CW-8039/2018]

documents to be brought on record as the same were relevant and

will have direct bearing in the decision making process. The

learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company relied

upon an operative portion of the impugned order dated

15.03.2018 which is reproduced below:

"geus fopkj fd;k vkSj izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd izdj.k esa vizkFkhZx.k dh lk{; 06-08-2015 dks iw.kZ gks x;h Fkh vkSj fQj ;g izdj.k cgl vfUre gsrq fu;r dj fn;k x;k FkkA mlds ckn chek dEiuh dh vksj ls 28-09- 2015] 09-10-2015] 23-01-2016 vkSj 29-04-2016 dks fofHkUu vkosnu i= is'k fd;sA bu lHkh dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk pqdk gSA vc ;g fopkjk/khu vkosnu i= 13-12-2017 dks is'k fd;k x;kA bl vkosnu i= ds lkFk tks nLrkostkr is'k fd;s x;s gSa] os gLrxr ekeys esa crkbZ tk jgh nq?kZVuk ds le; VDdj ekjus okys okgu ds pkyd ds fo:) yfEcr jgs nkf.Md izdj.k dh i=koyh ls lEcfU/kr gSA gLrxr ekeys esa Hkh nq?kZVuk dks fcUnq lfUufgr gSA vr% gekjh jk; esa mDr nLrkostkr gLrxr ekeys ds fy;s vge izÑfr ds gSaA Lo;a izkFkhZ i{k us Hkh iqfyl }kjk izLrqr vkjksi i= dh izfr;ka is'k dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl vkjksi i= ds Øe esa nkf.Md U;k;ky; esa pys izdj.k ds fopkj.k lEcU/kh nLrkost Hkh izkFkhZ i{k ds dsl ds fy, egRoiw.kZ gSaA bu nLrkostksa ds vfHkys[k ij gksus ls nq?kZVuk ds le; ds rF;ksa ds ckjs esa fu/kkZj.k djus esa enn feyuk lEHkkfor gSA dkuwu dh ;g fLFkfr Li"V gS fd nkf.Md U;k;ky; ds nLrkostkr ;k fu.kZ; {kfriwfrZ izdj.k gsrq vk/kkjHkwr nLrkost ugha gSa] bl laca/k esa foLr`r foospuk vafre fu.kZ; ds le; gh lEHko gSA bu nLrkostkr dks fdl gn rd ,oa fdl ifjizs{; esa ns[kk tkosxk ;g lk{; dk ewY;kadu djrs le; fopkj ;ksX; gSA fQygky bl n`f"V ls fd izdj.k esa lHkh igywvksa ij fopkj gks lds mDr nLrkostkr fjdkWMZ ij fy;k tkuk mfpr gSA nLrkostkr 23-05-2013 o blls igys ds gSaA chek dEiuh us bUgsa vR;Ur nsjhuk LVst ij 13-12-2017 dks is'k fd;k gSA vr% chek dEiuh ij dkWLV :i;s [email protected]& yxk;k tkuk mfPkr gksxkA ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd chek dEiuh }kjk ;fn ;g dkWLV jkf'k ,d ekg esa tek djk nh tkrh gS rks mDr nLrkostkr fjdkWMZ ij fy;s gq;s ekus tkosaxs ,oa chek dEiuh mlds ckn ,d ekg esa bu nLrkostkr ds lEcU/k esa lk{; is'k dj ldsxhA fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk i= esa U;kf;d eftLVªsV Øe 1 ds ;gka yfEcr jgh nkf.Md i=koyh [email protected] dks ryc djus dk Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA ;g fuosnu vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA chek dEiuh mDr i=koyh dh lR; izfr;ka is'k dj ldrh gSA fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk i= mDr vuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh fnukad 03-04-2018 dks is'k gksA

(5 of 6) [CW-8039/2018]

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon

an order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court titled as

Vidhya Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. ADJ No.2, Ajmer & Ors.:

2015(1) WLN 416 and has emphasized on paras 4 and 5 of the

same which are reproduced as under:-

"4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the compromise was filed by the Respondent No.2-plaintiff and Defendants No.1 to 3 on 07.03.2011 in which they disputed position with regard to possession of one room. Filing of the application by the petitioners in April, 2013 cannot be said to be enormously delayed, as in any case this documents would enable Trial Court for effective adjudication of controversy in question. However, inconvenience caused to the Respondent No.2-plaintiff can be compensated by award of resolvable cost. Considering that the suit in the present matter was filed seven years ago, appropriate direction is required to be given to the Trial Court to conclude the present suit.

5. In the result, present writ petition deserves to succeed and the same is, hereby, allowed. Impugned order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and documents field by the petitioners are allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of L 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only) to the Respondent No.2- plaintiff with further direction that the petitioners- defendants shall be entitled to produce their witness to prove that documents within one month from the next date fixed before the Trial Court and if they require any summon to the issued to such attesting witnesses of the Will, they shall make such application on the next date fixed in the matter enabling the Trial Court to issue summon for presence of such witnesses within the aforesaid period of one month. The Respondent No.2-plaintiff shall also be entitled to produce his evidence in rebuttal within one month thereafter in the similar manner. Trial Court is directed to finally conclude the suit within six months from the next date fixed before it."

9. On perusal of the record of the writ petition, submissions

made by learned counsels Mr. Sandeep Mathur and Mr. Virendra

Agrawal respectively as well as the judgments cited at bar, this

(6 of 6) [CW-8039/2018]

court is of the view that the learned trial court is master of the

case to be tried by it. It is its wisdom, in the facts and

circumstances, which it can exercise for a fair and legal

adjudication. In the matter in hand, the learned Tribunal, after

hearing the parties, has held that the records pertaining to

statements relied upon of the witnesses in criminal proceedings

and the related matter of the petitioners and respondent will be

relevant. Delay in filing the same can be condoned by imposing