Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.2.2009 Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Co. Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Respondents no. 4 and 8 stand served. None has entered appearance on their behalf. Respondent no.5 is dead. Respondents No. 6 and 7 could not be served. However, it is common ground that the respondents other than respondents no. l to 3 are not contesting in character. The challenge herein is to the validity of the order dated 8.10.2008 vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mukatsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) allowed the reception of certified copies of statement of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as Ex. R-5 and Ex. R-6 respectively into evidence in spite of the fact that they had not been examined in substantive evidence. Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh are Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 -2- **** otherwise claimants in MACT case No.65 of 26.10.2006. In support of the finding, the learned Tribunal drew sustenance from the fact that certified copy of a statement made in the course of judicial proceedings is admissible in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that context, the Tribunal also noticed that the rules of procedure and provisions of law of evidence”are not to be complied with strictly in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicle Act.”. The view is plainly indefensible and unsustainable. In view of the conceded position that Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh are claimants in the petition and they did not enter the witness box, the reception of their statements which they made in Criminal Case FIR No.9 dated 19.4.1996 under Sections 279/304-A IPC, Police Station, GRP Abohar pertaining to the impugned accident, would be illogical. When witnesses are alive and amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court, the law would not entertain a request for tendering of their statements (recorded before the Criminal Court) into evidence. If the reception of such like statements is allowed, the parties opposite shall, obviously, have no opportunity to cross examine them. The view obtained by the learned Tribunal is not in accord with law. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The stay order dated 5.12.2008 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. February 05, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge