Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.07.2025
PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Dagar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Aakash Bhardwaj and Mr. Yash Rawat, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned MACT-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has closed the right of the Petitioner to lead evidence [Driver of the offending vehicle].
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has been denied the opportunity of summoning a witness who is necessary for proving the location of the accident.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, who appears on advance service, who is the Claimant before the learned Trial Court submits that the Petitioner is delaying the matter before the learned Trial Court and previously as well, an order dated 28.01.2025 was passed by the learned Trial Court that had closed the right of the Petitioner to examine a witness. The order dated 28.01.2025 was taken up in challenge by the Petitioner before this Court in CM(M) 311/2025 captioned Pawan Kumar v. Prakriti Rawat.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 14.02.2025 in CM(M) 311/2025 had passed directions that one opportunity shall be granted to the Petitioner to summon the witness subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent. Emphasis was laid on the fact that it is the final opportunity to the Petitioner in the following terms:
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that even thereafter, on three dates, the witness was not produced and instead adjournments were taken by the Respondent. Hence, the Impugned Order was passed closing the right of the Petitioner [Respondent before the learned Trial Court] to lead further evidence. He also hand across copies of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court dated 18.02.2025 and 15.04.2025 which reflect this status.
6. Issue Notice. Learned Counsel for the Respondent accepts Notice and submits that he does not wish to file any Counter-Affidavit/Reply.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that the Petitioner/Respondent is the driver and owner and that a Petition was filed based on a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on 12.09.2023. The right of the Petitioner to file Written Statement was closed on 06.03.2024, since, despite repeated opportunities, no Written Statement was filed. The issues were also framed in the matter on 06.03.2024. The evidence of the claimant was closed by the learned Tribunal on 18.09.2024. Thereafter, and as stated above, multiple opportunities were taken by the Petitioner/Respondent to lead evidence/produce witness(es). 7.[1] By the order dated 28.01.2025, the learned Tribunal had held that since the involvement of the offending vehicle is not disputed, the reasoning for summoning of the witness for proving the location does not seem justified and had declined the plea of the Petitioner/Respondent to summon a witness. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.01.2025 is set out below: “Heard. Perused. The involvement of the offending vehicle is not disputed as qua this chargesheet has been filed. The reason for summoning of witness for proving the location seem not justified as same is not required for disposal of MACT petition. Similarly, for proving MLC by summoning the concerned doctor appears not necessary as simple injuries are recorded in MLC. Therefore, the said plea is also declined. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.” [Emphasis Supplied]
8. As stated above, by the order dated 14.02.2025 in a challenge by the Petitioner to the 28.01.2025 Order, the Coordinate Bench had granted a final opportunity to the Petitioner, subject to payment of costs to produce the same witness. Despite the additional opportunity being granted by this Court and by the learned Tribunal and the lapse of six months thereafter, no witness was produced by the Petitioner and hence the Impugned Order was passed by the learned Trial Court.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Claimant submits that the learned Tribunal had already given a finding on this aspect on 28.01.2025 and that repeated adjournments are only being taken by the Petitioner with a view that the hearing in the Claim Petition not be concluded.
10. In view of what is stated above and since, no cogent explanation has been provided by the Petitioner for the delay in production of his witness(es), this Court does not deem it apposite to interfere with the Impugned Order.
11. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending Applications also stand closed.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 21, 2025/r/ha