Manjeet v. Icici Lombard Ins Co Ltd & Ors

J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Issue Notice.

¶2Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent/Insurance Company.

¶3A claim petition under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred by the petitioner for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.12.2008.

¶4During his evidence, the petitioner examined one Ms. Lakshita (PW-2) from M/s. Endolite India Private Limited (M/s. Endolite) to prove the cost of the prosthesis required by the petitioner, as it was a case of amputation of one of his legs. PW-2 (Lakshita) was unable to produce the record pertaining to the examination of the petitioner on the ground CM (M) 1176/2012

that some renovation work was going on in the office and the record was misplaced. The Petitioner, therefore, had to examine the witness again from M/s Endolite and he sought permission to produce the earlier said witness from M/s Endolite. The application moved by the petitioner to re-examine Ms. Lakshita or any other witness from M/s. Endolite was dismissed without any reasonable ground.

¶5The Petitioner is, therefore permitted to re-examine Ms. Lakshita or to produce any other witness from M/s. Endolite to prove the cost of the artificial limb/prosthesis.

¶6The Petition is allowed in above terms.

¶7The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 19th November, 2012.

¶8Dasti to the parties.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE OCTOBER 30, 2012 sv

CM (M) 1176/2012 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30th October, 2012 + CM (M) 1176/2012 MANJEET ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Monica, Advocate for Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate. versus ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS...... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL