- (1.) These four writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the common order date 15.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur dismissing its four applications filed for different purposes. First of these applications was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. for amendment and/or for framing of additional issues. Second application was filed for summoning the record of the Regional Transport Authority. Third application was filed for amendment of the written-statement and fourth application was filed for a direction to proceed ex-parte against non-claimant No.1 Jai Gopal, who was driver of the offending vehicle.
(2.) Since all the four petitions were directed against the common order rejecting above referred to four applications, which were filed at the instance of the same petitioner, all these petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being now decided by this common order.
(3.) Factual matrix of the case is that on 27.03.1997, one Kishori Sharan Garg died in a road accident while driving a Maruti Esteem Car. The car driven by him collided with a truck on National Highway No.8 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. A first information report bearing FIR No.23/97 for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. was registered with the Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur clearly stating about involvement of above two and a third passenger bus. The truck bearing Registration No. HR 10/3976 was insured with the petitioner insurance company for the period from 24.08.1996 to 23.08.1997 and the cover note was issued covering this period. Claimants in this case filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on 24.08.2006 after more than nine years of the accident claiming a sum of Rs. 181,74,80,000/-. The enormity of the claimed amount of compensation has alarmed the petitioner insurance company to contest the present matter tooth and nail which has filed above referred to four applications for different purposes. According to petitioner, it issued policy of insurance on the subject vehicle on the strength of such earlier policy issued by the National Assurance Company, which fact was duly recorded in the cover note dated 23.08.1996. It appointed Investigator Shri Hawa Singh to verify the claim and examine all the peculiar circumstances; who visited office of Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak and Sonipath in the State of Haryana so as to ascertain genuineness and authenticity of the registration certificate. He submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak seeking verification of the particulars contained in the registration certificate of the vehicle from their record. The Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak returned the original application with the remark that particulars of the aforesaid vehicle were not traceable in their records and that the Regional Transport Authority at Sonipath be consulted in the matter. When he visited office of Regional Transport Authority at Sonipath, it issued particulars of Registration Certificate on 08.05.2008 indicating that no transfer of this vehicle has been made till date as per their record and that the vehicle was originally registered in their records in the name of Anjit Singh s/o.Omprakash and no N.O.C. was issued by RA/RTA for its transfer after 06.09.1990. Another reason for filing the aforesaid application before the Tribunal was that claimants were vigorously prosecuting the insurance claim on the policy of the deceased with the United Assurance Company and petitioner New India Assurance Company. The claimants also filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at New Delhi for damages caused to the car under the Consumer Protection Act, 2001. Even then the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed on 04.08.2006 belatedly after lapse of 9 years and 5 months. Despite there being no prescribed limitation, the Tribunal was still required to see whether the delay was satisfactorily explained because even in absence of period of limitation, claim petition was nonetheless required to be filed within reasonable time. Third reason for the petitioner to move one of the aforesaid applications was that since the driver of the offending vehicle Jai Gopal was declared hostile in the criminal case pending against him before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., proceedings against him in the motor accident claim case are liable to be held ex-parte notwithstanding filing of written - statement and vakalatnamu on his behalf. On the basis of the aforesaid, petitioner made yet another application with the prayer that the Regional Transport Authority Sonipath as well as Rohtak be directed to produce entire record relating to registration and transfer of offending vehicles from 06.09.1990 till the date of accident.;