IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3836 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.7.2011 Rashmi Tiwari and others … Petitioners versus Satish Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: Letter dated 22.4.2010 produced in Court is taken on record. The present petitioners are the claimants in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Rajesh Tiwari. They examined PW-6 Manoj Kumar Tyagi from the Employer’s company to prove salary certificates (Exhibits P-10 to P-13). However, he stated that Rashmi Tiwari wife of the deceased, Rajesh Tiwari, was also an employee of the company. This led the claimants to file an application for recalling Manoj Kumar Tyagi while urging that it was only Rajesh Tiwari who was the employee and his salary was being distributed to Rashmi Tiwari etc. and this point needs to be clarified. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.5.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. Hence, this revision. Heard. Counsel for the petitioners contends that Rashmi Tiwari was never the employee of the company and it is only after the death of her husband Rajesh Tiwari. She was offered a job by the company vide C.R. No. 3836 of 2011 -2- letter dated 22.4.2010 and in reference to the said letter, PW-6 Manoj Kumar Tyagi might have stated that Rashmi Tiwari was also the employee to the company but in response to said offer, Rashmi Tiwari never joined the service. This issue regarding employment of Rashmi Tiwari needs to be clarified and it will enable the learned Tribunal to properly adjudicate the same if PW-6 Manoj Kumar Tyagi is recalled for further examination and by doing so, no prejudice is going to be caused to the other side as they would be able to cross-examine him again. In back-drop of these facts, the present revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the claimants are permitted to recall PW-6 Manoj Kumar Tyagi for re-examination. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision 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. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 21, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE