Skip to content


Deepak Khosia Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 71 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984(6)DRJ188
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110A
AppellantDeepak Khosia
RespondentRam NaraIn and ors.
Advocates: S.L. Bhatia and; Mukesh Kher, Advs
Excerpt:
motor vehicle act--section 110-a--application filed claiming compensation of rs. 2.50 lacs for injuries sustained in accident--sustained in accident--claimant not taking steps for summoning his witnesses--case dismissed for non-prosecution by m.a.c.t.; negligence in not taking steps for summoning witnesses--no fault in order of dismissal of claim application. - .....case was adjourned to 8-10-80. again no steps were taken. the case was adjourned to 19-1-81. the situation remained the same. a further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 20-4-81 and then to 5-8-81. the situation remained the same and the petitioner did not taken any steps to summon his witnesses. finally, the case came up before the tribunal on 25-9-1981. when it was dismissed for non-prosecution.(3) the application was filed at that stage for restoration of the case. by order dated 5-10-81 the case was restored and was adjourned to 15-12-81. again the petitioner did not take any steps. the case was adjourned to 1-3-82. no steps were taken. finally the case was adjourned to 10-5-82. the situation remained the same. the case was again dismissed for nonprosecution.(4).....
Judgment:

N.N. Goswami, J.

(1) Have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length. This Appeal has been filed against the order whereby the application for restoration of the case was dismissed.

(2) The issues in the claim petition were framed in April, 1980. The case was adjourned for evidence to September'80. The petitioner did not take any steps to summons the witnesses. Further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 8-10-80. Again no steps were taken. The case was adjourned to 19-1-81. The situation remained the same. A further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 20-4-81 and then to 5-8-81. The situation remained the same and the petitioner did not taken any steps to summon his witnesses. Finally, the case came up before the tribunal on 25-9-1981. When it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

(3) The application was filed at that stage for restoration of the case. By order dated 5-10-81 the case was restored and was adjourned to 15-12-81. Again the petitioner did not take any steps. The case was adjourned to 1-3-82. No steps were taken. Finally the case was adjourned to 10-5-82. The situation remained the same. The case was again dismissed for nonprosecution.

(4) Another application was filed for restoration on the ground that the petitioner remained away on business, from Delhi and his father was looking after the case. The counsel could not contact his father and thereforee steps could not be taken. This plea did not find favor with the Tribunal and in my opinion rightly. It was the duty of the petitioner to atleast contact his counsel. In two years when the case was being adjourned from time to time for taking steps to summon the witnesses. In any case the petitioner and his father had contacted the counsel after the case was dismissed for default on 25-9-81. The case was restored and no steps were taken in 8 months. There is no Explanationn for this neglience. In this situation no fault can be find with the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed in liming.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //