THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR +CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2478 OF 2009 & 2479 of 2009 % Dated 10-11-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2478 OF 2009: Between: # Mohd.Hussain Khan and others. ..Petitioners. And: $ National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guru Govind Singh Market, Nagina Ghat Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State and another. …Respondents. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2479 OF 2009: Between: # Mohd.Hussain Khan and others. ..Petitioners. And: $ National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guru Govind Singh Market, Nagina Ghat Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State and another. …Respondents. ! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri L. Dayakar Reddy. ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri R.Venkata Rao. ^ Counsel for respondent No.2 : None. < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2478 OF 2009 & 2479 of 2009 Dated 10-11-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2478 OF 2009 Between: Mohd.Hussain Khan and others. ..Petitioners. And: National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guru Govind Singh Market, Nagina Ghat Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State and another. …Respondents. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2479 OF 2009 Between: Mohd.Hussain Khan and others. ..Petitioners. And: National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Guru Govind Singh Market, Nagina Ghat Road, Nanded, Maharashtra State and another. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2478 OF 2009 & 2479 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2478 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in I.A.No.1076 of 2009 in O.P.No.697 of 2006 dated 8-5-2009 and C.R.P.No.2479 of 2009 arises out of the order passed in I.A.No.1077 of 2009 in O.P.No.697 of 2006 dated 8-5-2009. Since these two revisions are connected and arising out of the same original petition, they are being dispose of by this common order. Petitioners herein are claimants in the main O.P. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the son of the claimants 1 and 2 and brother of other claimants. On behalf of the petitioners, 2nd petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the case was coming up for marking documents and for cross examination of P.W.1 on 29-4-2009. On that day, the 2nd petitioner (P.W.1) did not attend the tribunal and the tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Petitioners herein filed I.A.No.1077 of 2009 to reopen the case for the purpose of marking exhibits and for cross-examination of P.W.1 and I.A.No.1076 of 2009 to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking exhibits and for cross examination of P.W.1. On 8-5-2009, the tribunal passed the following orders in I.A.No.1077 of 2009 as follows: “Heard, petition is dismissed since filed after closure of the petitioners evidence.” On the same day, the tribunal also passed the following orders in I.A.No.1076 of 2009 as follows: “IA No.1077/09 to reopen OP is dismissed, this petition is also dismissed.” On 8-5-2009, the tribunal passed the following order in the main O.P.No.697 of 2006: “Respondent No.1 and his counsel called absent. No further evidence. Evidence on both sides closed. Call on 11-6-2009 for arguments.” The only point that falls for consideration is whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The tribunal closed the evidence on 29-4-2009 and posted the matter for evidence on respondents on 8-5-2009. Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” It has to be seen that order XVIII Rule 17 makes it clear that the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness. Thus there is no embargo that the Court has no right to recall a witness after the evidence is closed. Even after the closure of the evidence of plaintiff or the defendants, or both parties, the parties may approach the Court to reopen the case for further evidence and it is the discretion of the Court to allow any application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. However, the discretion has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is most unfortunate that the lower Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The tribunal ought to have considered that the claimants 1 and 2 have approached the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of their son. In fact, the tribunal has to follow its own procedure as it thinks fit. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: “(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.” Section 169 of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. For the purpose of enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and for compelling the discovery and production of documents, the Tribunal has all the powers of Civil Court. While dealing with the claim petitions filed under the M.V.Act, 1988, the tribunal shall not apply strict rules of procedure as contemplated under C.P.C. and that is not the purport of Section 169, which makes it clear that tribunal has to follow only summary procedure. It is a fact that justice delayed is justice buried but at the same time, we should not forget that the justice hurried is justice buried. In this case, the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 on 29-4-2009. Unfortunately, on that day P.W.1 was absent. Merely because for one day, P.W.1 was absent, there was no hurry for the Tribunal to close the evidence of petitioners on that day. In all fairness, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the claimants to recall P.W.1. It has to be seen that the claimants have filed the petitions in the year 2006 and having been awaiting for compensation and for one reason or the other, the trial commenced in the year 2009 but the tribunal has closed their evidence on 29-4-2009. When petitioners have filed an application to reopen the matter and recall P.W.1 for marking certain documents and for further cross- examination, the Tribunal ought to have allowed those applications and ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners. The very purpose of the relevant provision and the constitution of the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimants who approach the tribunal either for the death of their near or dear or for injuries caused to them would be defeated if reasonable opportunity is not given to the parties to adduce evidence. In view of the above, both the C.R.Ps. are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and consequently, I.A.Nos.1076 of 2009 and 1077 of 2009 filed by the petitioners stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 10-11-2010 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. BO. Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2478 OF 2009 & 2479 of 2009 Dated 10-11-2010