28­wp­840­11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2011 Smt. Savita Sanjaykumar Ghunake and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri. Satish Pandurang Ghunake and Anr. ..Respondents Shri. A.M.Kulkarni advocate for petitioners None for the respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners original claimants in MACT Petition No. 134 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ichalkaranji. 3. Ordinarily this Court is disinclined to interfere in interlocutory orders but bearing in mind that the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witness has been forfeited, that the notice was issued on this petition and the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why the cross-examination by the petitioners be not continued and 1 28­wp­840­11.doc he be permitted to question the witness on the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy. 4. Mr. Kulkarni reports that both the respondents are duly served but none are appearing on their behalf. The affidavit proving the service has also been filed. 5. With the assistance of Mr. Kulkarni, I have perused the petition and annexures thereto. One Sanjaykumar Ananda Ghunake died in an accident. He was running a medical shop and was also an agriculturist. The accident occurred on 2nd August, 2006 when he was traveling in one jeep. The petitioners/claimants are wife, the daughter, son and parents of the deceased. 6. During the course of hearing of this MACT Petition filed by the petitioners, the Officer of the Insurance Company stepped into box. The petitioners asked him certain questions about the schedule attached to the policy and the contents of the same and it is the grievance of the petitioners that the witness was answering the question but the learned Judge disallowed the same. The petitioners applied in writing that they may be permitted to cross- examine the witness and he be recalled for a limited purpose but even that request has been denied. 7. With the assistance of Shri. Kulkarni, I have perused the 2 28­wp­840­11.doc order impugned in this petition. What the learned Judge has observed is that the question written with the application and the documents in respect of which question was asked on the tariff rules are exhibited in evidence and therefore, the point with regard to which the questions have been posed, may be argued without any further cross- examination. 8. In my view, the learned Judge should have allowed certain questions to be posed so as to have proper clarification with regard to the terms and conditions of the policy. Ultimately, the contents of the policy be known. The cover thereof and its sweep in terms of the applicable Rules and Regulations assist the Court in arriving at a just and fair decision with regard to the compensation. The liability of the insurer is determined on the basis of these contents. Therefore, even if the liberty was given to the petitioners to argue the point in the peculiar facts of this case, no prejudice would have been caused to either side if the questions had been allowed. In such circumstances and without deciding any wider controversy, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The question that petitioners wish to pose which is set out in their application dated 24th September, 2010, be allowed to be 3 28­wp­840­11.doc asked to the witness who has been examined by the New India Insurance Company. The witness Keshav Dattatray Joshi be recalled for the said limited purpose. Save and except the questions that are referred to in the application, the petitioners shall not pose any further or other questions and after the answers thereto are given by the witness, the cross-examination may be closed. 9. Writ petition is allowed in these terms with no order as to costs. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] 4