Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

NitIn Vs. Radhis

Nitin vs Radhis

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 16, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512772

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nitin

Respondent

Radhis

Legal References

Reported In
III(2002)ACC489

Excerpt

- .....the application, therefore, this is a fit case for remand.3.1 have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the order- sheet dated 11.7.1996 and also dated 23.11.1996, the tribunal has not assigned any valid reason for rejecting these two applications, when the appellant wanted to examine the government doctor, then either court should have issued summons or if the doctor was not in a position to attend the court then in such circumstance his application for recording the evidence of doctor on commission should have been allowed by the tribunal. now as per recent amendment in the civil procedure code which has come into force w.e.f. 1.7.2002. the evidence can be recorded by the commissioner as per the amended provisions of rule 4 order 18 of the c.p.c.4. therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the aforesaid fact that the court has rejected both the explanations without assigning any valid and cogent reasons. this appeal is allowed. the impugned award passed by the tribunal is set aside. the case is remitted to the m.a.c.t., dhar to record the evidence of doctors and for that necessary steps shall be taken by the tribunal either to call them in the court or to examine on commission. tribunal to dispose of the case finally within four months.5. parties to bear their own costs, record of the court below be returned, immediately.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.K. Gohil, J.

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 05/1996 whereby the Tribunal granted only a sum of Rs. 23,836.85 paise along with 12% interest.

2. The submission of Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned Sr. Counsel is that an opportunity to examine the doctors on commission was not granted by Tribunal and the applications were dismissed without any valid reason. The medical certificates were already on record. On 11.7.1996 before the Tribunal he had filed an application for recording the evidence of Government Doctor Sarvate from Bhoj Government Hospital, Dhar on commission and had filed another application dated 23.11.1996 by which he wanted to produce the another doctor to prove the disability certificate, which was rejected. He further submitted that on account of the injury the claimant's Spleen was removed and for proving the aforesaid disability the Tribunal has not granted any opportunity and dismissed the application, therefore, this is a fit case for remand.

3.1 have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the order- sheet dated 11.7.1996 and also dated 23.11.1996, the Tribunal has not assigned any valid reason for rejecting these two applications, when the appellant wanted to examine the Government Doctor, then either Court should have issued summons or if the Doctor was not in a position to attend the Court then in such circumstance his application for recording the evidence of Doctor on commission should have been allowed by the Tribunal. Now as per recent amendment in the Civil Procedure Code which has come into force w.e.f. 1.7.2002. The evidence can be recorded by the Commissioner as per the amended provisions of Rule 4 Order 18 of the C.P.C.

4. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the aforesaid fact that the Court has rejected both the explanations without assigning any valid and cogent reasons. This appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remitted to the M.A.C.T., Dhar to record the evidence of Doctors and for that necessary steps shall be taken by the Tribunal either to call them in the Court or to examine on Commission. Tribunal to dispose of the case finally within four months.

5. Parties to bear their own costs, record of the Court below be returned, immediately.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial