IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6421 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Kanchan Mala … Petitioner versus Tejbir Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the claimant in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. She is aggrieved with order dated 21.9.2010 by virtue of which her application for additional evidence has been dismissed. The facts are that in the claim petition, petitioner’s counsel closed evidence on 15.12.2009 without examination of Balaji Vakatshwar Parshad , the sole witness of the accident who could not be served for want of correct address though diet money for summoning him was deposited on 12.10.2009. Claimant-petitioner then filed an application for additional evidence for summoning the Investigating Officer to prove the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The application was dismissed and so as the revision. Present one is the second application for additional evidence to summon and examine the said solitary eye-witness. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner contends that now the whereabouts of the afore-stated witness have been ascertained. He is stated to be the sole eye-witness. There is no dispute that his evidence would clinch the issue of negligence in the claim petition which will help the Tribunal to decide the claim petition fairly and justifiably. It has also been pointed out that the said witness is not a stranger but his statement under C.R. No. 6421 of 2010 -2- Section 161 Cr.P.C. was record as well and he is a cited witness in the criminal case. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable in the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act as this is a beneficial legislation. The present petitioner will certainly suffer an irreparable loss if the sole eye-witness is not allowed to be examined. In view of this, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permit to examine Balaji Vakatshwar Parshad, the sole eye-witness, through the process of the Court. This shall however be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Aid Fund. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. May 31, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE