Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.09.2011 Satnam Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Vishal Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Satnam Singh son of Gurmail Singh, Loveneet Kaur, minor daughter of Satnam Singh-petitioners-claimant Nos.1 and 3 and Balwinder Kaur wife of Satnam Singh-proforma respondent No.3-claimant No.2(for brevity “the claimants”) filed the claim-petition(Annexure P-2) for the grant of compensation of `10,00,000/- on account of death of Akashdeep Singh son of Satnam Singh, deceased, who was stated to have died in a motor accident in question, due to rash and negligent driving of Vishal Kumar-respondent No.1- Driver of the offending Mohindera Jeep No.PB-23-E-7535 owned by and during the course of employment of Suraj Parkash son of Kundan Lal-respondent No.2, invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As, the claimants did not conclude their evidence, despite availing six opportunities, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short “the MACT”) closed their evidence, by means of impugned order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-1). Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 2 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-1) of the MACT, the petitioner-claimants preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents/driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the claim-petition, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. Be that as it may, but still they would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desire. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 6. As is clear from the impugned order(Annexure P-1) that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the MACT was that, the claimants did not conclude their evidence, despite having availed six opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the fact that Satnam Singh and Balwinder Kaur-claimant Nos.1 and 2 are unfortunate parents of deceased Akashdeep Singh, who died in the motor accident in question. The FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the material eye- witnesses of the occurrence are yet to be examined. So, taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the plight of the claimants, to me, the MACT ought to have granted effective opportunities to the claimants, to conclude their evidence, subject to payment of costs. The production of evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to produce the evidence is not granted, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 3 claimants. In this manner, the MACT committed a material, procedural irregularity and illegality and the impugned order cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents/driver and owner of the offending vehicle, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.08.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The MACT is directed to provide two effective opportunities, to the claimants, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the claimants to the respondents/driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The MACT would render adequate help to the claimants, to procure the presence of the witnesses, in accordance with law. September 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 4 C.M.No.22933-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5728 of 2011 Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE