C.R. No. 33 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 33 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 8, 2009 Smt. Sudesh Rani and others .. Petitioners v. Gurmail Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 19.12.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, (for short, `the Tribunal') whereby evidence of the petitioners-claimants was closed by order of the Tribunal. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a claim petition filed by the petitioners- parents and brother of deceased Sandeep Kumar Sharma, who died in a road accident on 31.3.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were making all efforts to complete their entire evidence. However, on account of non-appearance of one of the witness, who had to prove the income of the deceased, the same could not be completed and the evidence of the petitioners- claimants was closed by order of the Court. It is further submitted that the witness, who was required to be summoned, for him Rs. 400/- were deposited as DM/SA. The submission is that the respondents are yet to start leading their evidence and in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioners shall complete their entire evidence on the next date fixed in the petition, i.e., 23.1.2009. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in the submissions made. Considering the fact that it is a claim petition filed by the old parents and brother on account of the death of a young member of the family, in C.R. No. 33 of 2009 [2] the absence of any evidence on record proving the income of the deceased, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to set aside order dated 19.12.2008 closing the evidence of the petitioners and grant another opportunity to the petitioners to complete their entire evidence on the date already fixed i.e., 23.1.2009. Considering the fact that it is a claim petition filed by the parents on account of the death of their young son, I do not find it reasonable to impose any cost for the same. The petitioners will be at liberty to take help of the court to summon the witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners in case they fail to complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.1.2009 mk