Civil Revision No. 3174 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3174 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2010 Seeta Ram Sharma .. Petitioner v. Kamla Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 13.4.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner/owner of the vehicle for summoning of witness from the office of District Transport Officer, GS. RD Dimapur, Nagaland with record/register pertaining to licence No. 21350/TV/Z/2006 of Ashok Kumar son of Anand Swarup, was dismissed. It is a case in which a petition was filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Daljit Singh. Though copy of the licence was produced on record, however, the same was required to be proved. It is for that purpose that the application was filed by the petitioner/owner of the vehicle for summoning the witness from Dimapur, Nagaland. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application being not maintainable referring to Order 16 Rule 19(2) CPC and stating that the witness being from a distance beyond 500 kilometers cannot be summoned and further that the evidence of the petitioner stood concluded. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition. For the view, I am taking, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would result in unnecessarily delay in disposal of the present petition as well as the claim petition pending before the Tribunal. In any case, the order is not going to prejudice any party, as the same will result in disposal of the claim petition in accordance with law. Civil Revision No. 3174 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground on which the application was rejected cannot be sustained, considering the fact that proviso to Order 16 Rule 19 CPC clearly provides that in case a witness is from a distance of beyond 500 kilometers, he can still be summoned in case the place is connected by air. In the present case, Dimapur, Nagaland, from where the witness is sought to be summoned, is connected by air from Delhi, which is close to Gurgaon. He further submitted that closure of the evidence by the petitioner earlier should also not come in his way as the rights of the petitioner will be materially effected without the production and proof of the driving licence on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. The ground on which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application for summoning the witness from Dimapur, Nagaland is that he is located at a distance beyond 500 kilometers in view of Order 16 Rule 19(2) CPC though there is no such provision. However, it seems that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the proviso to Order 16 Rule 19 CPC, which provided that where transport by air is available between the two places and the witness is paid the fare by air, he may be ordered to attend in person. It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that Dimapur, Nagaland is connected by air and he is ready to bear the expenses of the witness for travel by air. Once that is so, the reason, on which the learned Tribunal had rejected the application, cannot be sustained. Even if the petitioner had already closed his evidence, the production and proving the driving licence as genuine would have substantial effect on the rights of the petitioner in the claim petition. Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to prove the driving licence even at this stage. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner/owner of the vehicle to summon the witness from the office of District Transport Officer, G.S. RD Dimapur, Nagaland along with the requisite record to prove the driving licence. However, the process should not detain the Tribunal from determining the amount of compensation, as the effect of evidence, which may be led by the petitioner, would only be settlement of dispute between the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner is afforded an opportunity to summon the witness from District Transport Officer, G. S. RD Dimapur, Nagaland. Effective steps be taken by him expeditiously so that proceedings in the claim petition are not delayed unnecessarily. Civil Revision No. 3174 of 2010 [3] The petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.5.2010 mk