MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited has assailed the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun city (for short "mact") dated 25. 8. 2000 whereby his prayer for getting the Insurance Policy exhibited in the Claim Case No. 25/95 has been refused on the mere technicality that it was not exhibited. THE petitioner's grievance is that this is going to seriously prejudice his defence in the matter.
(2.) IT is no doubt true that there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in not marking the Insurance Policy as an exhibit, but it was equally the liability of the respondents to point it out to the petitioner, who was respondent therein, to mark the same as exhibit if an objection in this regard has been raised by the respondent herein. If a grave prejudice is likely to be caused merely on point of this technicality, it should be the duty of the Court, in my opinion, to overlook the same so that the ultimate cause of justice may not suffer. Hence, it is considered appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a fresh application before the MACT Hindaun city renewing his prayer for marking the Insurance Policy as an exhibit, which should be dealt by the Tribunal taking into account as to whether any grave prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner or not in absence of the Insurance Policy. If the petitioner is in a position to make out a case of prejudice, the Tribunal may consider ignoring the technical aspect of the matter by imposition of appropriate cost in the matter. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. .;