Civil Revision No. 7320 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7320 of 2011 Date of decision. 29. 11.2011 Buddhi Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sukhendra @ Billu and ors ...... Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. One of the claimants, Buddhi Singh has come by way of this revision petition questioning the legality of the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short 'Tribunal') whereby the evidence of the claimants has been closed as also the order dated 13.10.2011 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the claimants for grant of one more opportunity to them for their evidence. Civil Revision No. 7320 of 2011 --2-- Claimants Buddhi Singh and others had brought a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Manoj Kumar in a road side accident. Learned Tribunal has passed the following order on 21.04.2011:- “No evidence on behalf of petitioner is present and a date requested. Today is the last opportunity offered to conclude his evidence. Now there is no ground to adjourn the case for same purpose. Therefore, evidence of the petitioner is closed by court order. Now to come up on 26.5.2011 for evidence of Rws.” I have heard Shri Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned Tribunal has closed the evidence of the claimants by way of order dated 21.4.2011 for the reason that it was last opportunity to the claimants to conclude their evidence on that day. He could not find any ground for adjourning the case for this purpose and so he closed the evidence. The claimants filed an application for giving one more opportunity to them to lead their evidence. The same has been dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2011 for the reason that the Tribunal had no power to review its earlier order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that adequate number of opportunities had not been granted to the claimants. According Civil Revision No. 7320 of 2011 --3-- to him, though issues in this case were framed on 25.03.2010 and the case was adjourned to 03.06.2010, 13.01.2011, 3.3.2011 and 21.4.2011 for evidence of the claimants yet the Tribunal was to be on leave on 13.1.2011 and so only three opportunities have been granted to the claimants for their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and on that account he could not bring the evidence. It is claimed that one more opportunity to lead the evidence of the claimants may be given. The claimants are a bereaved lot, who had lost their kin in a road side accident. They are entitled to compensation and it would appear unjust if their claim petition is dismissed just for their failure to bring their evidence in the three opportunities granted for the purpose. For the fact that number of opportunities granted to the petitioner and other claimants is not very large, I find that the claimants are entitled to one more opportunity to lead their evidence. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned orders, I direct learned Tribunal to give one clear and effective opportunity to the claimants to lead their evidence for which dasti summons may be given if they so desired. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this court. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.11.2011 dinesh