C.R. No.5503 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5503 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.08.2010. Smt. Babli and others .……Petitioners Versus Rajesh Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rrespondent Nos.2 and 4 ex parte. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Notice issued to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the lower Court Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate, Gurgaon has been received with the report that notice does not relate to the said counsel. However, perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-3 of the Claims Tribunal reveals that Mr. S. K. Singla is representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is only one Advocate by the name of Mr. S. K. Singla at Gurgaon. It is thus apparent that respondent No.1 has been properly served through his counsel before the Claims Tribunal. However, none is appearing for respondent No.1. Proceeded ex parte. Claimants No.1 to 4 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.07.2009 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims C.R. No.5503 of 2009 -2- Tribunal, Gurgaon thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 filed by the claimants (petitioners and proforma respondent No.4) for additional evidence. It is alleged in the application that claimants examined Anil PW-6 as eye witness of the accident. During cross- examination, it was suggested to him on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that his statement was not recorded by the Police. According to the claimants, statement of Anil had been recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 04.07.2008 during investigation and, therefore, Investigating Officer of the case is sought to be examined as witness by additional evidence to prove this fact. Respondent No.3 opposed the application by filing reply Annexure P-2 alleging that the application was moved after the Tribunal had already heard arguments and after hearing the arguments on 28.04.2009, the Tribunal had announced its verdict that the claim petition would be dismissed on 02.06.2009, i.e the next date of hearing. Learned Claims Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P-3 dismissed the claimants' application for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that necessity for examining the investigating officer as witness by additional evidence arose in view of suggestion put to Anil PW-6 eye witness of the accident in cross-examination that his statement had not been recorded by the Police during investigation, although in fact C.R. No.5503 of 2009 -3- statement of this witness had been recorded on 04.07.2008 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, however, contended that the application for additional evidence was moved by the claimants after the Claims Tribunal had heard the arguments. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Contention on behalf of respondent No.3 that application for additional evidence was moved after the Tribunal had heard final arguments in the main case cannot be accepted. Even the Tribunal has not so mentioned in the impugned order. Moreover, if the Tribunal had heard the arguments on 28.04.2009 and announced the verdict that the claim petition would be dismissed on the next date of hearing i.e on 02.06.2009, there would have been no occasion for the claimants to move application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence on 17.07.2009. Even otherwise, the Tribunal could not have announced on 24.08.2009 itself that the claim petition would be dismissed on 02.06.2009. On the other hand, necessity for additional evidence arose in the circumstances explained in the application as noticed hereinabove. Claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Rupesh caused in motor vehicular accident. The aforesaid provision is a beneficial provision for providing relief to victims of motor vehicular accidents. Claims Tribunal adopts summary procedure for adjudication of the claim petition and is not bound by the technicalities of law of procedure or evidence. In the instant case, the ends of justice would be met if the claimants are permitted to lead additional evidence on payment of C.R. No.5503 of 2009 -4- costs. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the Claims Tribunal is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by the claimants for additional evidence is allowed and the claimants are permitted to examine investigating officer of the case as witness by additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 30.08.2010 A. Kaundal