Civil Revision No. 4212 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4212 of 2006 Date of decision: 4.11. 2009 Neelam Devi and others ......petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Claimants-petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Maman Ram @ Maman Singh in a motor vehicle accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, petitioners moved an application under Order 23 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) for abandonment of claim of salary of the deceased qua Rs.200/- per month. Vide the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 the said application was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short the Civil Revision No. 4212 of 2006 2 'Tribunal'). Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the application without discussing as to whether the claimants could give up part of their claim under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. The argument raised by the learned counsel has force. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal had not discussed as to whether the petitioners were entitled to abandon any part of the claim to enable them to bring their petition within the ambit of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioners afresh in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE November 04 , 2009 anita