Civil Revision No. 7445 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7445 of 2011 Date of decision. 02.12.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. .... Petitioner Versus Anil and another ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.09.2011(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short 'the Tribunal) vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. In the claim petition brought by Anil under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- , the respondents had to lead their evidence on 27.09.2011, Civil Revision No. 7445 of 2011 --2-- when no evidence of respondent no.2 was present. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-petitioner sought adjournment for its evidence. Looking to the facts that vide order dated 06.04.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner had closed the evidence of the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 27.04.2011 for evidence of the respondents and that six effective opportunities including three last opportunities had already been given to the respondents, learned Tribunal found that more than sufficient opportunities have already been granted to respondent no.2 to lead its evidence and, therefore, it was not entitled to further adjournment for the purpose and its evidence was closed by order of the Tribunal vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri Subhash Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was only to examine an official from Licensing Authority Mathura, who was visiting Jhajjar on 27.09.2011 but was to appear as a witness in yet another case titled as Anita v. Ravi before Shri A.K. Jain, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar also. According to him, this fact was brought to the notice of learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal was requested to wait for the witness, who would be attending that Tribunal on being free from the other one. According to him, learned Tribunal did not wait for him and taking that no evidence had been brought by respondent no.2, closed its evidence. Civil Revision No. 7445 of 2011 --3-- There is nothing on the record to suggest that an official of Licensing Authority Mathura had been appearing in the courts at Jhajjar on 27.09.2011. The petitioner could establish this fact by bringing a certified copy of the statement of the witness from the case titled as Anita v. Ravi, pending before Shri A.K. Jain, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the fact regarding official of Licensing Authority, Mathura being in the courts was brought to the notice of learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal ignored the said fact. However, an important witness had been left unexamined and if learned Tribunal found that respondent no.2 was not taking the required interest in leading its evidence, adjournment could be granted subject to payment of costs. So closing of the evidence of respondent no.2-petitioner in the given circumstances, does not seem to be justified. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is accepted subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned Tribunal is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce its evidence, for which dasti summons of the witness may also be given. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh