Civil Revision No.1677 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1677 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 10, 2011 Sandeep Kumar @ Deepu .....Petitioner v. Kusum Lala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6745-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1677 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (hereinafter to be referred as `the Tribunal') vide which the application filed by petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for compensation was filed by respondents no.1 to 5- claimants against the present petitioner being the driver, respondent no.6 being owner and respondent no.7 being insurer of the offending vehicle on account of death of Surjit Singh caused in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 18.12.2008. The petition was filed on 22.7.2009. Petition was contested by present petition and another respondents. Issues were Civil Revision No.1677 of 2011(O&M) -2- framed. Evidence of claimants was closed. Evidence of present petitioner and present respondent no.6 was also closed on 22.9.2010, after tendering driving licence of present petitioner. It has been contended that there is typographical mistake in the driving licence of petitioner, so tendered before the Tribunal as his name was not correctly typed, though his photograph and his father's name and the complete address has been correctly mentioned. Further contends that when the said fact came to the knowledge of present petitioner, he obtained duplicate driving licence from the licensing authority alongwith a certificate from the licensing authority that driving licence was in fact issued in the name of petitioner only and that there was typographical mistake in writing the name of the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity be given to the petitioner to lead evidence to prove the said fact at his own responsibility. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside to the extent the opportunity was denied to petitioner to lead additional evidence. Learned Tribunal is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility subject to payment of `1,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 10.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge