IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2009(O&M) Date of Order: 21.10.2009 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh and others. .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** SABINA, J.(Oral) Ranjit Singh and others have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Sonia Saini in the motor vehicle accident. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents. After close of claimants evidence, the case was adjourned for the evidence of the respondents. Vide order dated 17.09.2009, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has closed the evidence of the respondents by order. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the driving licence was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner on 21.04.2009 and the case was adjourned to 01.06.2009. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was transferred and the case was adjourned to 30.07.2009. On the said date, no summons have been issued by the ahlmad. The Tribunal was requested to issue dasti summons for summoning of the Clerk of D.T.O.Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that only Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2009 ..2.. one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead its evidence at its own risk and responsibility. On 17.08.2009, following order was passed by the Tribunal: “Amarjit Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, refused the service as is made out from the copies of the summons and report submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 allegedly having been received through fax. Let such witness be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.10000/- with one surety in the like amount on filing of PF of 05.09.09.” On 17.09.2009 following order was passed by the Tribunal: “No RW is present. On the last date of hearing RW, Amarjit Kaur was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrant on filing of PF etc. However, the respondent No.3 has not deposited the said charges. Today, an application is moved for deposit of such charges. But no permission is granted to the respondent No.3 to do so because it is transpired that the respondents have availed five opportunities to conclude their evidence but they have remained unsuccessful. Hence, evidence of the respondent is closed by order. To come up on 25.09.2009 for arguments.” Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the orders reproduced above, the ends of justice require that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude its evidence at its own risk and responsibility. The other side can be compensated with costs. The paramount duty of the Court is to deliver justice to the parties. Incase the petitioner is allowed to lead its evidence, the lis between the parties would be disposed of on merits. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2009 ..3.. grant one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its evidence at its own risk and responsibility subject to payment Rs.2500/- as costs. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to counsel for the petitioner. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to counsel for the petitioner. 21.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge