Civil Revision No.3632 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3632 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 31, 2011 Jaspreet Kaur .....Petitioner v. Jasbir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.5.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar, (for short `the Tribunal'), Annexure P1, vide which the evidence of petitioner-claimant has been closed by order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant 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 present petitioner-claimant under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short `the Act'), on account of injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident against respondents, i.e., driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Claim petition was contested. Issues were framed. The case was fixed for evidence of petitioner-claimant and, however, when no Civil Revision No.3632 of 2011(O&M) -2- other witness was produced, her evidence was closed by learned Tribunal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to personal difficulty of counsel for the petitioner, remaining evidence could not be recorded, as earlier father of counsel for the petitioner was admitted in PGI and on 12.5.2011 when the impugned order was passed, counsel did not appear as his real uncle had expired. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioner-claimant as she wants to get herself examined as her own witness and a Medical Officer to prove the medical record at her own responsibility. It has been also contended that she has suffered multiple injuries including injury in her right eye and even her right eye has been damaged upto 80%, for which she has to undergo several surgical operations. Though sufficient opportunities have been availed by petitioner-claimant to adduce evidence, however, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, as detailed above, one opportunity can be granted to her to examine herself as her own witness and also to examine concerned Medical Officer at her own responsibility. The present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned Tribunal is directed to grant one opportunity to examine herself as her own witness and a concerned Medical Officer at her own responsibility by taking dasti summons. Disposed of accordingly. 31.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3632 of 2011(O&M) -3-