Jagdish Vs. Deependra @ Deepak Yadab Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav

Jagdish vs Deependra @ Deepak Yadab Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 07, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1120185

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1120185
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 07, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Advocate Shri. V.K.Mishra

Respondent

Deependra @ Deepak Yadab Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav

Advocate Shri. V.K.Dubey, Shri. T.S.Lamba

Excerpt

.....vehicle bolero jeep no.mp-20-va-0681 at village ghunwara tahsil maihar district satna. for the injuries sustained by petitioner, he was treated by one dr. naveen kothari. petitioner applied for examination of dr. naveen kothari on commission. the application was al- lowed; however, on the date i.e.28.4.2013, when the doctor was to be examined, petitioner did not appear. the petitioner sought one more opportunity to examine the doctor on com- mission; however, the tribunal, by impugned order, rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner having grant of op- portunity did not avail the same. it is gathered from the impugned order that dr. naveen kothari, who was to be examined on commission, is a resident of jabalpur whereas the case is tried at satna and the petition- er had to depend on his counsel, who was to examine the doc- tor on commission. :: 2 : writ petition no.14261/2013 apparently, it is the counsel who could not reach in time. as a result whereof, the doctor was not examined. for such a mistake of the counsel, the petitioner-claimant should not be made to suffer. in the considered opinion of this court, the tribunal ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-claimant, at the cost of petitioner. in view whereof, the impugned order-dated 4.7.2013 (supra) is set aside and the trial court is directed to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine dr. naveen kothari on commission on the terms and conditions set out by the tribunal. it is made clear that if the petitioner still fails to examine dr. naveen kothari on commission, no further oppor- tunity shall be granted to him. petition is allowed to the extent above. no costs. certified copy as per rules. (sanjay yadav) judge vinod

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.14261/2013.

7.1.2014.

Shri V.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Shri T.S.Lamba, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

With consent, matter is heard finally.

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of In- dia, is directed against the order-dated 4.7.2013; whereby, Ad- ditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar Distt.

Satna (for short 'the Tribunal') has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner to examine the doctor on commission.

Claim case preferred by the petitioner is in respect of in- juries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident on 2.12.2010 caused by the offending vehicle Bolero Jeep No.MP-20-VA-0681 at Village Ghunwara Tahsil Maihar District Satna.

For the injuries sustained by petitioner, he was treated by one Dr.

Naveen Kothari.

Petitioner applied for examination of Dr.

Naveen Kothari on commission.

The application was al- lowed; however, on the date i.e.28.4.2013, when the doctor was to be examined, petitioner did not appear.

The petitioner sought one more opportunity to examine the doctor on com- mission; however, the Tribunal, by impugned order, rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner having grant of op- portunity did not avail the same.

It is gathered from the impugned order that Dr.

Naveen Kothari, who was to be examined on commission, is a resident of Jabalpur whereas the case is tried at Satna and the petition- er had to depend on his counsel, who was to examine the doc- tor on commission.

:: 2 : Writ Petition No.14261/2013 Apparently, it is the counsel who could not reach in time.

As a result whereof, the doctor was not examined.

For such a mistake of the counsel, the petitioner-claimant should not be made to suffer.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-claimant, at the cost of petitioner.

In view whereof, the impugned order-dated 4.7.2013 (supra) is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine Dr.

Naveen Kothari on commission on the terms and conditions set out by the Tribunal.

It is made clear that if the petitioner still fails to examine Dr.

Naveen Kothari on commission, no further oppor- tunity shall be granted to him.

Petition is allowed to the extent above.

No costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2014 Same Parties Jagdish vs Deependra @ Deepak Yadab Judgement Given By: Hon'b... Same Subject Education