IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3585 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2011. Nalin Kumar. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Swastika Metal Udyog and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Harmanjit Singh Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.05.2011, Annexure P2 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, the ‘MACT’) vide which application filed by petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned MACT, Hoshiarpur. CR No.3585 of 2011 Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner alongwith Head Constable R.J.Kumar was on official duty on 20.05.2005 and they had gone on a scooter bearing No. PB-07-H-2904 to Lamba Pind Chowk and they were returning to police line and however, on the way a vehicle bearing No. PB-08-0071, which was coming from Lamba Pind Chowk being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter causing injuries to both the riders of the scooter including the present petitioner. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation against the driver, owner and insurer- Company of the offending vehicle. Petition was contested by the respondents. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by the parties and the case was fixed for arguments when the present application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner for tendering and proving Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board from the office of Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur showing that petitioner is still having 80% disability. However, the said request was declined by learned MACT, Hoshiarpur vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the document is essential for deciding petition filed by the petitioner-claimant as the certificate shows that he is still having 80% disability. However, perusal of impugned order passed by learned MACT, Hoshiarpur shows that the said certificate was not with the petitioner even when the application for adducing additional evidence was filed and he had sought a date to procure and prove disability certificate which was procured later on. Already sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner-claimant 2 CR No.3585 of 2011 by learned MACT. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality and material irregularity has been committed by learned MACT, Hoshiarpur in passing the impugned order. However, in view of the fact that now certificate dated 23.05.2011 has been issued by Medical Board from the office of Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur declaring the petitioner-claimant having 80% disability, which is essential for deciding the petition for compensation filed by him, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to produce and prove the same. Hence, in the interest of justice, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned MACT, Hoshiarpur is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner- claimant to produce and prove disability certificate dated 23.05.2011, Annexure P3. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3