Smt. Vandana Vanshkar vs. Dhruv Singh Chouhan

Held

The High Court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application to summon a witness from M/s Everest Enterprises. The Court reasoned that a claimant cannot be expected to dictate the exact format of documents issued by an employer. The Tribunal's refusal to call the witness based on the absence of GST details or clear designations on the documents was premature. The Court emphasized that if the documents were suspicious, the opposing parties would have the opportunity to challenge their authenticity through cross-examination of the summoned witness. The principle established is that at the stage of summoning a witness, the Tribunal should not presume documents to be forged, but rather allow parties a fair opportunity to prove their case. Consequently, the impugned order of the Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the application to summon the witness was allowed. The Tribunal was directed to issue consequential directions, with the non-applicants at liberty to cross-examine the witness.

Facts

The petitioners/claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, averring that the deceased was employed with M/s Everest Enterprises, Noida, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 23,790/-. During the evidence stage, they filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon a witness from M/s Everest Enterprises to prove the employment and income certificates. The Claims Tribunal rejected this application, citing that the provided documents lacked GST numbers, GST registration, and clear signatures or designations of the issuing authority. The High Court noted that the documents, an employment certificate and a salary slip, were issued by M/s Everest Enterprises, though the signatories' designations were not explicit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon a witness from M/s Everest Enterprises to prove the deceased's income and employment, thereby denying the petitioners a fair opportunity to prove their case. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Order 16 Rule 1 CPC and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they cannot control the format in which an employer issues documents and that the Tribunal wrongly presumed the documents to be forged at the stage of summoning a witness. They contended that any doubts regarding the authenticity of the income and employment certificates could be addressed during cross-examination by the opposing parties. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (who are private parties, not the State or Revenue in the GST context).