Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Hinduja Complex vs. Smt. Sippi Jha

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had not annexed any documents to establish that the claimants had filed Income Tax or GST returns. Furthermore, the application filed before the Claims Tribunal did not specify which documents were filed by the claimants or the grounds for rebuttal. Crucially, a copy of the claim application itself was not annexed to the writ petition. In the absence of such essential pleadings and supporting documents, the High Court was unable to ascertain the necessity of summoning departmental witnesses and records for the purpose of rebutting any evidence. Consequently, the Court found itself unable to entertain the writ petition due to insufficient documentation and lack of clarity on the petitioner's case. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a duly constituted writ petition if so advised.

Facts

The petitioner, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, is a non-applicant in a claim case before the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur. The claimants are seeking compensation for the death of Pankaj Kumar Jha, alleging he was the proprietor of M/s Sharda Construction and regularly filed Income Tax and GST returns, forming the basis for a compensation claim of Rs. 56 crores. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 231 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, seeking to summon witnesses from the Income Tax and GST Departments with relevant records for financial years 2020-21 to 2025-26 to rebut the claimants' assertion. The Claims Tribunal rejected this application, stating the petitioner could produce original copies of the returns. The petitioner contended they do not possess these returns and departmental officers are necessary to prove otherwise.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Rule 231 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, for summoning Income Tax and GST Departmental officers and records, thereby violating the petitioner's right to rebut the claimants' evidence regarding the deceased's income. (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of Rule 231 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: The claimants asserted that the deceased regularly filed Income Tax and GST returns, which formed the basis for a substantial compensation claim. To effectively rebut this claim, the petitioner argued it was essential to summon departmental officers along with the relevant records. The petitioner stated they are not in possession of these returns and therefore cannot produce them directly. The rejection of the application by the Tribunal prevents them from presenting crucial evidence to counter the claimants' assertion. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsel for respondent No. 8 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) opposed the petitioner's submissions, arguing that the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned order rightly after considering the facts and circumstances, and no interference by the High Court is warranted.