C.R.No.3025 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3025 of 2009. Decided on: September 07, 2009. Ami Lal and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Rajiv Kumar and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Diwan S.Adlakha, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, an application filed by the claimants-petitioners, for production of additional evidence has been dismissed, on the ground that the petitioners have not been diligent enough in pursuing their petition. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioners have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for grant of compensation on account of death of Satish Kumar son of petitioner, which was caused in an accident on 20.01.2006. The owner of the vehicle has . . . 1 C.R.No.3025 of 2009 been proceeded against ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. The petitioners want to establish the ownership of the motorcycle of respondent No.1, by proving the Bill of Purchase and other relevant record showing that the motorcycle had been purchased by the owner from Malik Automobile, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioners have pleaded that motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-02P/8845, Engine No.84531, Chassis No.07681, involved in the accident was owned by respondent. In order to establish the ownership of respondent No.1, the petitioners have put interrogatories. The said application was dismissed by the claims Tribunal. In view of the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, being ex parte and there is no evidence on the record having been produced regarding the ownership of the offending vehicle, it will be difficult for the claims Tribunal to adjudicate the real controversy regarding the liability in case the petition is allowed. The owner of the vehicle has got a statutory liability, as such, the petitioners should have been given permission to lead evidence to establish the ownership of the offending vehicle. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.05.2009, is set aside and it is ordered that the petitioners will be given opportunity to lead evidence to establish the ownership of the alleged offending vehicle. Interim order passed by this Court is vacated. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court . . . 2 C.R.No.3025 of 2009 on 19.09.2009. Thereafter, the matter will be taken up for further proceedings in accordance with law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 07, 2009. rka . . . 3