CR No. 2389 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2389 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.4.2011. Gurdev Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport ......Respondents Corporation, Patiala and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the injuries, suffered by him. Vide the impugned order dated 22.3.2011, the evidence of the claimant was closed by the tribunal. Hence, the present petition by the claimant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner had taken the dasti process to effect service on the doctor but the doctor had failed to appear on 22.3.2011. Petitioner had suffered a fracture of his right leg in the accident and it was necessary for the petitioner to examine the doctor who had given treatment to the petitioner. Petitioner also wanted to examine the Ahlmad of the court where the criminal proceedings were pending. Service had been duly CR No. 2389 of 2011 (O&M) -2- effected on the said Ahlmad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to enable him to conclude his evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The present case relates to a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that in the said accident, petitioner had lost his wife and had himself suffered injuries. In case, one opportunity is allowed to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, the claim petition will be decided on merits. The tribunal would also be in a better state to determine the quantum of compensation if the petitioner examines the doctor, who had given treatment to him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is allowed. The tribunal is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. (SABINA) JUDGE April 07, 2011 Gurpreet