IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7442 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.12.2009 Smt.Anju Kalra and another .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short `the Tribunal'), whereby evidence of the petitioner- claimants has been closed. The petitioners are the widow and minor son respectively of deceased Shanti Lal Kalra, who met with a fatal accident. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal while closing the evidence has completely over-looked the legislative policy of social welfare behind the compensatory scheme. It ought have been kept in view that the petitioners C.R. No.7442 of 2009 (O&M) 2 are young widow and minor son of the deceased as they, while struggling with the sudden crises, might have failed to produce their evidence which cannot be said to be intentional lapse on their part. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 1.12.2009 is set-aside and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, is directed to provide not one but sufficient opportunities to the petitioners to lead their entire evidence. No cost shall be imposed on the petitioners on account of any unintentional delay on their part in producing the evidence. Dasti. 15-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE