1 wp10345-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10345 OF 2010 Jareena N. Mujawar .. Petitioner versus Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance .. Respondent Mr.Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 3rd August 2011. P.C.: . Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jaisingpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.5 of 2008. The respondent is duly served, but, none appears on its behalf. 2 The petitioner’s application (Exhibit 20) for production of documents came to be rejected by the trial Court on two occasions. The order dated 24th August 2010, passed on the second occasion, is 2 wp10345-10.doc impugned in this writ petition. 3 From a reading of the application, what has been clarified is that the applicant/petitioner desire to produce certain documents. That application was filed on 17th November 2009, which was opposed on the ground that an affidavit in examination in chief is filed on 12th June 2009. The production cannot be allowed thereafter. That was the objection which was accepted by the Tribunal and it passed order on the said application on 17th November 2009, rejecting the production of documents. On the second occasion, the petitioner filed another application and pointed out that she was admitted in three hospitals. She has taken treatment for long duration and, therefore, she could not obtain the documents from all hospitals. The petitioner pointed out that because of her serious ailment, and that too, her legs, she was unable to walk properly. She had to go for treatment. She had to incur expenses for the same. The petitioners financial condition was very poor and she was unable to make payment of the hospital bills. As and when she makes payments and obtains receipts, she wants to place them on record. That would enable her to prove her claim. The only ground on which the insurance company objected to this application, is 3 wp10345-10.doc that there is no provision for making a second application when earlier application on the same grounds has been rejected. Further, in the cross examination, she stated that all necessary documents and medical bills are handed to the advocate in time. 5 Accepting these objections, the application has been rejected. 6 After perusing the order under challenge, to my mind, all that has happened is that the petitioner has stepped into the witness box. It is stated that her cross examination is yet not over. She is in the witness box. If even at this stage, the documents are allowed to be produced, in the larger interest of justice, no prejudice will be caused to the insurer, as the insurer can cross examine the petitioner on the contents of the said documents. The petitioner can be allowed to produce the documents and after hearing both sides, the documents may be read in evidence in accordance with law. 7 None appears for the respondents though served. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner, that her evidence is not over. She is still being cross examined. In such circumstances, interest of justice 4 wp10345-10.doc would be served if the petitioner is permitted to produce the documents which are enlisted below Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 25 and if the same are filed alongwith the list within a period of two weeks from today, the Tribunal to take them on record in accordance with law. Needless to state that the respondent will have liberty to cross-examine the petitioner and her witnesses and lead independent evidence of its own. Keeping open all remedies in law, the petition is allowed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)