C.R. No. 4266 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4266 of 2010 Date of decision : August 16, 2010 Balwinder Singh Petitioner Versus Jarnail Singh and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence in order to examine Dr. Sangeeta Shori, Director J.N. Shori Multi Specialty Hospital, Pinjore and for tendering the medical bills and operation charges bills in additional evidence was dismissed by learned Tribunal on the ground that petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities including last opportunity for leading evidence and when he failed to adduce his complete evidence, his evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 9.4.2009, therefore, he was not entitled to lead additional evidence. It was also held that proposed additional evidence was within his knowledge and C.R. No. 4266 of 2010 2 possession but still it is not explained as to why he could not produce the evidence earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that petitioner had suffered injuries and permanent disability in an accident occurred on 4.12.2006. He had taken treatment from J.N. Shori Multi Specialty Hospital, Pinjore, District Panchkula. The said plea was taken by the petitioner in his claim petition which reads as under:- “The claimant was taken to J.N. Multi Specialty Hospital, Pinjore where he remained for 15 days. The claimant suffered fracture on hip joint right side and left side and still he is under treatment.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although Order 18 Rule 17-A has been deleted from Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) but Order 18 Rule 16-A of the CPC has been incorporated by this Hon'ble Court, which reads as under:- “Rule 16-A Production of evidence not previously known or which could not produced despite due diligence- Where a party satisfy the Court that, after exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it be just.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time when petitioner appeared in the witness box, he C.R. No. 4266 of 2010 3 could not tender the bills indicating the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment from Shori Hospital as they were misplaced in his residence. No sooner the said bills were traced, an application for leading additional evidence was accordingly filed. He further admits that the said plea was not taken by him in the application filed for additional evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that story put forward by the petitioner for not leading his evidence is totally concocted as there is total negligence on the part of the petitioner in not leading his evidence is not informative, therefore, it could not be allowed. I have perused the records and heard learned counsel for the parties. The present case pertains to the compensation having been sought for the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the vehicular accident. The petitioner besides claiming compensation for the injuries, pain and suffering has also prayed for reimbursement of amount which he has incurred on his treatment for the negligence on the part of the respondent. In so far as evidence with regard to injuries, pain and suffering which forms compensation with regard to non-pecuniary damages is concerned, petitioner has already led evidence. So far as pecuniary damages is concerned, evidence could not be led as the medical bills were allegedly misplaced by him. The question of additional evidence is entirely on satisfaction of the Court. At the very outset, petitioner had suffered injuries and was treated from J.N. Shori Multi Specialty Hospital, Pinjore. If he was C.R. No. 4266 of 2010 4 operated then he must have spent some money on his treatment as he remained in the hospital for 15 days. In my view petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him and for that purpose I am satisfied with the explanation given by him that he could not lead evidence earlier as the bills were misplaced. In view thereof, the present revision petition is allowed and petitioner is permitted to lead evidence by producing Dr. Sangeet Shori of J.N. Shori Multi Specialty Hospital, Pinjore as witness and also to tender documents showing the expenses incurred by him on his medical treatment. Needless to say defendants would also be entitled to cross examine the said witness. With these observations the present petition is allowed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 16.08.2010 JUDGE reena