Civil Revision No.5555 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5555 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 13, 2011 Surender Kumar .....Petitioner v. Bhagwat and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.22172-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5555 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.8.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal') vide which application for permission to lead additional evidence filed by petitioner was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the same was insured with respondent no.4-Insurance Company. It is further contended that driver of petitioner, Dev Dutt, respondent no.3, was Civil Revision No.5555 of 2011(O&M) -2- having valid driving licence at the time of accident and, however, plea was taken by respondent-Insurance Company that the driving licence is fake. Hence, on request of petitioner, he was permitted to lead additional evidence by learned Tribunal and one opportunity was granted to him vide order dated 15.6.2011. Further contends that due to negligence of counsel for the petitioner, he did not inform the petitioner about the date fixed for evidence and rather he also did not appear on the date fixed and hence, evidence of petitioner was closed vide impugned order dated 9.8.2011. Further contends that on the basis of same driving licence, own damage claim was paid by Insurance Company regarding this vehicle and hence, it is contended that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner to adduce evidence at his own responsibility. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence at his own responsibility by taking dasti summons subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of Civil Revision No.5555 of 2011(O&M) -3- 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 13.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge