IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3636 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Narinderjit Kaur and another … Petitioners versus Rajwinder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners are the claimants in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Dilbagh Singh. They are aggrieved with the order dated 20.5.2011 by virtue of which their evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision. Counsel for the petitioners contends that initially, the case was fixed for 6.4.2011 and on that date, their witnesses were present but the Presiding Officer was on leave and on the adjourned date, they could not come to the Court on account of the fact that proforma respondent No.5 fell sick. No doubt, many opportunities have been sought and the claimants have been callous in not concluding their evidence but the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. This is a beneficial legislation. The claimant-petitioners shall suffer an irreparable loss if an opportunity is not afforded to them to lead evidence. They may be deprived of the compensation for which they are entitled to on account of death of their near and dear. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioners-claimants to lead their entire C.R. No. 3636 of 2011 -2- evidence. This order shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. May 31, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE