C.R.No.4843 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4843 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.11.2011 Gopi Chand Kanojia and another . ..Petitioners Versus General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. APS Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.5.2011, Annexure P.2 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the prayer of the petitioners for examining the doctor and an eye witness had been declined. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. On 7.2.2008, daughter of petitioners namely Ms.Neetu Kanojia was pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.DL-3S-BA-0601 which was being driven by Ankush, her cousin brother. When they reached near round about of Sector 39/40 Chandigarh, a bus bearing No.CH01-G-5206 which was being driven 1 C.R.No.4843 of 2011 by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and Ms. Neetu Kanojia suffered multiple grievous injuries and she succumbed to injuries on 12.2.2008 in the PGI, Chandigarh. Ankush who was driving the motorcycle also suffered multiple injuries. The petitioners filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandigarh. Petitioner No.1 appeared before the Tribunal as PW1 on 22.2.2011 and the case was adjourned to 4.5.2011 for remaining evidence. On the said date, due to non availability of disability certificate of Ankush and complete particulars of the concerned doctor, the evidence could not be produced. The Tribunal closed the evidence of the petitioners by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire evidence has already been examined except the doctor and an eye witness. Examination of the said witnesses is very essential for just decision of the claim petition. It was submitted that the same could not be examined due to certain unavoidable circumstances and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents can be compensated by way of costs. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated in the petition, it is directed that the trial court shall grant one opportunity to the petitioners to examine the doctor and an eye witness who shall be produced at 2 C.R.No.4843 of 2011 their own risk and responsibility on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondents. In case, the respondents have any substantive grievance against this order, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court for any modification. 6. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. November 29, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3