MAC CASE No. 91 of 2002 · Gauhati High Court

Heard Mr. DN Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner an d Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The respondents No.2 and 3 have not appeared despite notice. It is needless to say that proceedings under Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are summary in nature. In other words, the nitty-gritty of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to decide the claim applications . Besides this, the documents were annexed with the affidavit evidence as exhib its. If the documents were not submitted in the Tribunal as per the established procedure it was the duty of the learned Member of the Tribunal to reject the e xhibits at the initial stage. However that was not done. The exhibits of the cla imant were accepted after going through the evidence in chief of the claimant. I t appears to me that the documents were not property exhibited by making statem ents on oath. Hence, this revision application is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to allow the claimant to give additional evidence to prove the documents. After giving additional evidence the contesting parties may also be allowed to cross-examine the claimant. With the aforesaid directions, the revision application stands d isposed of. Stay order stands vacated. Both the parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 30 .4.2013 and receive further orders.