After Earlier Summons Went Unserved, Chhattisgarh HC Gives Insurer Another Chance To Call FIR-Registering Head Constable Despite One Fee Lapse

In a motor accident claim arising from the death of Pankaj Kumar Jha, the petitioner-insurer, arrayed as non-applicant No. 5 before the Claims Tribunal, had obtained permission under Rule 231 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, to summon a witness connected with Crime No. 43/2022, Police Station Bango, Korba.

Although process fees had previously been paid, the witness was not served. On 16 October 2025, following a further default in payment of process fee, the Tribunal forfeited the petitioner’s right to examine the witness. The insurer challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.

Under the principles stated by the Court, a party’s right to lead evidence is an important part of effectively prosecuting or defending a civil proceeding and should not be denied so as to prevent adjudication on the merits, unless the party’s conduct warrants that consequence. Although a court may regulate proceedings and refuse repeated or unjustified adjournments, forfeiture of the right to lead evidence must be exercised cautiously and in furtherance of adjudication on the merits.

The petitioner’s application to summon the witness had been allowed under Rule 231 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had previously paid process fees, but the witness had not been served; the forfeiture followed a later, single default in payment.

In those circumstances, the Court found that the default did not justify shutting out the witness’s evidence and that forfeiture would substantially impair the petitioner’s ability to establish its case. It therefore considered that the interests of justice required one further opportunity, subject to payment of the requisite process fee.

The Tribunal was directed to fix a date for the witness’s evidence, and the petitioner was directed to pay the required process fee. The petitioner was also permitted to take dasti summons in accordance with the applicable procedure.