CR No.7025 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7025 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 15.07.2010 **** Gurnam Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. United India Insurance Company Limited, Dabwali, District Sirsa and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for Mr.R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar (for short ‘the Tribunal) dated 5.09.2009 by which while allowing the application of the petitioner, two witnesses, namely Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh have been ordered to be summoned for the purpose of recording their statements as witnesses for the respondents. CR No.7025 of 2009 -2- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal for the purpose of determination of compensation on account of death of the brother of the petitioner. During the course of hearing, respondent No.3/ insurance company tendered the statements of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as Ex.R5 & R6 as documentary evidence and closed its evidence as recorded vide order dated 8.10.2008 by the Tribunal. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Civil Revision No.6751 of 2008 alleging that the learned Tribunal has erred in receiving certified copy of statements of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as Ex.R5 and R6 as evidence in spite of the fact that both are alive and are claimants in the claim petition No.65 of 26.10.2006. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court on 05.02.2009 observing thus: “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 amendable 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. CR No.7025 of 2009 -3- The petition 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.” Thereafter, petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 11.4.2009 praying for cancellation of the documents Ex.R5 and R6 which have been tendered by the Insurance Company. The insurance company filed reply to the said application on 22.04.2009 in which it was alleged that Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh be allowed to be summoned as their witnesses. Vide order dated 5.9.2009, learned Tribunal, though, cancelled the statements Ex.R5 and R6 in terms of the order passed by this Court in CR No.6571 of 2008 yet summoned two witnesses namely Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as the witnesses of the insurance company for 15.9.2009. That is how grievance has been caused to petitioner, which led to the filing of the present revision petition. Learned counsel or the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in exercise of its jurisdiction in summoning Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as the witnesses of the insurance company in the application filed by the petitioner after canceling the documents Ex.R5 and R6 in terms of the order passed by this Court on 5.2.2009. It is submitted that the insurance company should have made out a case for examining these two persons as their witnesses, who are claimants before the Tribunal, but no such application has been filed by them and in the absence of any application, the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. CR No.7025 of 2009 -4- Learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that in fact an application was filed by respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle but in the present case, both the persons have been summoned as the witnesses of insurance company. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. To my mind, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and irregularity because there is no application on behalf of the insurance company for summoning these two persons as their witnesses, who though are arrayed as claimants. Insofar as the application for summoning is concerned that has been filed only by the owner on which no order has been passed by the Tribunal. Thus, in view of above, the present revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside insofar as it relates to the summoning of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh as witnesses of insurance company. However, respondents are at liberty to file appropriate application in accordance with law for the purpose of summoning of the witnesses. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 15.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek