Mankura Devi and Others vs Rakesh and Others

T.S. Doabia, J.—Heard counsel.

An application preferred by the insurance company seeking examination of a witness on commission, has been allowed.

It be seen that the insurance company wanted to examine an official of the Regional Transport Authority at Meerut (hereinafter referred to as RTA). What was sought to be proved was whether the person who was driving the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence or not.

I am of the opinion that no case was made out for examination on commission. The question as to whether Rakesh was having a valid driving licence or not is an issue which may not have material bearing for the disposal of the suit. The Supreme Court of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, , has observed that merely because a person was not having a valid driving licence would not be a good ground not to grant the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This aspect of the matter be also looked into while re-deciding the matter.

In view of the above, the court below shall re-examine:

(i) As to whether it is absolutely necessary to have the presence of an official of R.T.A.?

(ii) As to whether purpose could be well served by serving interrogatories with the concerned R.T.A.?

(iii) In case it is found that it is absolutely necessary to have an official of R.T.A. examined, it would pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In that eventuality, it would fix the fee not only of the Commission but also the fees of the counsel who is representing the claimants who would have to go to cross-examine the witness in question.

(iv) Also go into the question as to whether Commission is required to be issued at all.

Disposed of accordingly.