CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. SIPPI JHA

1

CGHC010140532026 2026:CGHC:46097
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 564 of 2026
1 - Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Hinduja
Complex, Paras Nagar Chowk, Near Railway Line, Devendranagar Marg,
Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Sippi Jha W/o Late Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Aged About 38 Years R/o
Shri Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And
Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) (Wife Of The Deceased)
2 - Aadya Jha D/o Late Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Aged About 14 Years R/o Shri
Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And Dist.-
Raipur (C.G.) Through Legal Representative- Smt. Sippi Jha (Mother) (Minor
Daughter Of The Deceased)
3 - Divya Jha D/o Late Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Aged About 13 Years R/o Shri
Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And Dist.-
Raipur (C.G.) Through Legal Representative- Smt. Sippi Jha (Mother) (Minor
Daughter Of The Deceased)
4 - Jalaj Jha S/o Late Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Aged About 38 Years R/o Shri
Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And Dist.-
Raipur (C.G.) Through Legal Representative- Smt. Sippi Jha (Mother) (Minor
Son Of The Deceased)
5 - Smt. Manjula Devi W/o Shri Sharda Nand Jha Aged About 67 Years R/o
Shri Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And
Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) (Mother Of The Deceased)

2
6 - Sharda Nand Jha S/o Late Satya Narayan Jha Aged About 68 Years R/o
Shri Ramnagar Near Railway Station Gate, Thana- Khamhardih, Tehsil And
Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) (Father Of The Deceased)
7 - Ram Kishore Jha R/o House No. 29/121, Road No. 6, Shriram Nagar,
Near Tv Tower, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle-
Cg-04-Md-9531)
8 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Manager The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Pk Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, Dist.-
Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Car- Cg-04-Md-9531)
9 - Ganesh Singh S/o Lal Dev Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Selari,
P.S. Tarashi, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
10 - Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Kishun Singh R/o Through Rajendra Prasad Gupta,
Ward- 15, Ramanujganj, Dist.- Balrampur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate along with Ms.
Shrejal Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on board
30.10.2026.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated
th
16.10.2025 passed by learned 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 393/2022 whereby the right to call
the investigating officer of the Crime No. 43/2022 registered at Police
Station- Bango, District- Korba has been forfeited on the ground that the
non-applicant No. 5 has not paid the process fee for calling of the said
witness.

3
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the
non-applicant No. 5 before the learned Claims Tribunal where the
respondent No. 1 to 6 are prosecuting a claim case for compensation of
Rs. 56,09,00,000/- on account of death of Late Pankaj Kumar Jha.
During the proceeding, the non-applicant No. 5 had filed an application
under Rule 231 of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rule for calling of the
investigating officer of Crime No. 43/2022 registered at Police Station-
Bango, District- Korba along with the case diary of said crime number
as a witness in the case. Though, vide order dated 08.11.2024, the
learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the application and permitted the
non-applicant No. 5 to summon the witness of the investigating officer of
Crime No. 43/2022 and the petitioner paid the process fee regularly for
summoning the said witness, however, the summons could not be
served upon him and he could not appeared. Lastly, he was again
ordered to the summoned after payment of process fee by the non-
applicant No. 5 but due to clerical mistake, the process fee could not be
paid for the said witness ant in absence thereof, the learned Claims
Tribunal has forfeited the right to examine the investigating officer of the
said crime number and proceeded for recording evidence of the other
witness of the non-applicant. He would further submit that the said
witness is necessary for just decision of the case to be examined on the
material point of the accident that allegedly occurred on 12.03.2022.
Only for one default in payment of process fee due to clerical mistake,
the non-applicant No. 5 could not be penalized by forfeiting his right to
examine the said witness in their support. Therefore, the impugned
order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to examine

4
the investigating officer of Crime No. 43/2022 of P.S. Bango, District-
Korba.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 8 opposes and
would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly forfeited the right
to produce the witness in default of the petitioner and the impugned
order is not required any interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document
annexed with the petition.
5. In the present case, although, the petitioner has not annexed any copy
of the plaint or other document except the order-sheets of the learned
Claims Tribunal and application under Rule 231 of Chhattisgarh Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1994. However, from the order-sheets annexed with the
petition filed along with covering memo dated 15.06.2026, it transpires
that vide order dated 08.11.2024, the petitioner was permitted to
produce his witness who is the investigating officer of Cirme No.
43/2022, registered at Police Station- Bango, District- Korba and from
the further order-sheets it transpires that despite having payment of
process fee for the said witness, the summons could not be served and
he could not be examined before the learned Claims Tribunal. However,
on 16.10.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned
Claims Tribunal as considered that the petitioner has not paid the
process fee for calling of their witnesses and his right to examine the
investigating officer of the said crime number has been forfeited.
6. It is well settled that the right of a party to lead evidence is an important
facet of the right to effectively prosecute or defend a civil proceeding,
and such right ought not to be denied in a manner that results in
shutting out the party from establishing its case on merits, unless the

5
conduct of the party is such as to justify such a consequence. Though
the Court has ample power to regulate proceedings and decline
repeated or unjustified adjournments, the power to forfeit the right to
lead evidence must be exercised cautiously and in furtherance of the
ultimate object of adjudication on merits. In the present case,
notwithstanding the repeated adjournments on the ground of non-
service of summons to the witness for whom th eprocess fees were paid
time to time, the negligance cannot be imputed on the part of non-
applicant No. 5 for one default of payment of process fee for the
witness, forfeiture of his right to examine him would substantially impair
his ability to prove its case, this Court is of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be served by affording him one opportunity to lead
its evidence.
7. After having gone through the material available in the present writ
petition as well as order sheets, this Court is of the considered opinion
that one more opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to keep his
witnesses present and he may be permitted to pay the process fee for
the said witness. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025
with respect to the forfeiting the right of non-applicant no. 5 to produce
the head-constable namely Uday Kumar Singh who registered the FIR
of Crime No. 43/2022 at P.S. Bango, District- Korba and permitted him
to call the Head Constable Uday Kumar Singh as the witness in their
support in pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned
Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal is directed to fix a date for
recording evidence of the said witness of non-applicant No. 5 and the
petitioner is also directed to pay the requisite process fee under the law

6
for calling of the said witness as per the date fixed by the learned
Claims Tribunal.
8. The petitioner is also at liberty to take Dasti Summons for the said
witness in due process.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge

Sagrika