IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3643 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Krishan Kumar … Petitioner versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the owner of jeep No. DL- 1CC/9280 and is respondent no.2 in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. He is aggrieved with the order dated 25.5.2011 by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court and also with dismissal of his application for additional evidence. The facts are that claimants closed their evidence on 22.4.2011. Thereafter, 25.5.2011 was the fourth date for respondents’ evidence. On that date, the insurance company tendered into evidence one verification report of the Licensing Authority, Agra, regarding the driving licence of driver stating that the same was not issued by them. The present petitioner-owner filed an application that Raj Kumar, driver, had also obtained a verification report on 2.2.2006 but the same has not been traced out and as such, the same could not be produced in evidence and therefore, he may be permitted to place on record the same being essential for the adjudication fo the case. The said application was also dismissed as indicated above. Hence, this revision. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the validity of the driving licence is an important issue in the motor accident claim cases C.R. No. 3643 of 2011 -2- and an opportunity deserves to be given to the driver to prove that he was holding a valid driving licence. It is beneficial legislation. The principes of CPC are not strictly applicable to motor accident claim cases. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. A copy of the order be given Dasti, attested under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. May 31, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE