Civil Revision No. 4009 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4009 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.7.2011 *** National Insurance Company Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Munni Devi & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.6. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner Insurance Company is aggrieved with order dated 24.3.2009 by virtue of which its application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Heard. It emerges out from the record that initially in this case an award was passed pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties. But later the present petitioner i.e. Insurance Company filed an application for setting aside the same on the ground that there was collusion between the applicants and the owner and driver of the vehicle, whereas no such accident ever took place. Consequently, the learned MACT framed the issues on the application, upon which the parties led their evidence. However, it appears that due to inadvertence the Insurance Company could not examine D.S. Chaddha, Investigator, who also investigated the accident. Since the onus is on Insurance Company to prove that the impugned award is liable to be set aside, in the considered opinion of this Court the evidence of aforesaid Investigator would help the learned Tribunal for proper Civil Revision No. 4009 of 2009 2 adjudication of the issues and in this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner to produce additional evidence. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite side who obviously have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. It is within the domain of the Courts to permit the party to lead additional evidence if it appeared to be of vital nature, necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute and left over inadvertently. That apart, there is a consensus between the parties with regard to grant of one opportunity to the petitioner for production of aforesaid witness. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to grant the petitioner an effective opportunity to examine the Investigator. Keeping in view the the fact that the case pertains to the year 2006, the learned Tribunal shall decide the application within three months. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 27, 2011 Jiten