IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2423/2009 Date of Decision: 1.5.2009. Jogindero @ Rani and another ..........Petitioners. Versus M/s Kundan Steel Corporation and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. IPS Kohli,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby evidence of the petitioners was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 filed by the petitioners-claimants. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that post mortem report, police report, hospital record and other record need to be produced by the petitioners and since these documents have to come from different sources, it is therefore, submitted that despite best efforts of the petitioners, who are poor widow and minor son of the deceased, the same could not be produced on the dates fixed. In these circumstances, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to CR NO.2423/2009 2 conclude the entire evidence of the petitioners is prayed for. Heard learned counsel and perused the paper book. It is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. Furthermore, while adjudicating claim petitions under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, a beneficial piece of legislation, the Tribunals/Courts are not required to adopt a hypertechnical approach. Further, neither it can be said that the claimants are causing unnecessary delay in adducing their evidence nor can it be said that they gain anything by adopting delaying tactics. It is a known fact that for claimants belonging to poor section of the society it becomes a harrowing task in collecting and producing the evidence. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to conclude their entire evidence. For the reasons stated above, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 23.3.2009 is set aside and petitioners are directed to be granted reasonable and sufficient opportunity to conclude their entire evidence. 1.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge