KAILASHNATH Vs. KISHORILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Pawnekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal granted only four months time to the appellant to examine the necessary witnesses and on account of such short span of time the appellant was unable to procure necessary doctors for the purpose of proving the expenditure which he incurred in the medical treatment which was a long one and very much expensive. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have given more time to the appellant to enable him to examine necessary witnesses for proving the expenditure incurred in long medical treatment. He further submitted that when the appellant made a statement on oath that when he was travelling by the said vehicle, the said vehicle turtled, it by itself was proving the negligence on the part of the driver. Apart from that, Shri Pawnekar submitted that it was for the driver of the said vehicle or owner of the said vehicle to examine the driver of the said vehicle for the purpose of proving that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of vehicles in question. In addition to it, he has submitted that the Insurance Co. should have obtained the permission from the Tribunal to contest the claim on behalf of the driver and owner of the said vehicle. But in the present case, the Insurance Company has also not done so. He submitted that there has been injustice to the appellant and · in the interest of justice atleast the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for retrial.

(2.) SHRI Dhupar, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that in the interest of justice the Insurance Company should be given an opportunity of contesting the claim on merit in view of the joint reply of respondents 1 and 2. Shri Dhupar in the alternative submitted that when the appellant did not examine necessary witnesses and closed the case; now he cannot submit that injustice has been caused to him.

(3.) THE joint say submitted by respondents 1 and 2 entitles the Insurance Company -respondent No. 3, to contest the claim on merit. It needs to be given sufficient opportunity in' that context. The Insurance Company may seek permission in writing from the Tribunal to contest the claim on merit if respondents 1 and 2 do not contest it on merit. Sufficient opportunity needs to be granted to respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company also because it is the custodian of public funds. In the interest of justice the award which has been passed by the Tribunal thus in the circumstances and the points mentioned above, stands set aside. The Tribunal to re -assess the evidence on record and record the findings afresh on all the issues.