Gurmeet Singh and Another vs Sarinder Alias Surinder and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Gurmeet Singh and his wife Harjeet Kaur who are claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (in short, the Tribunal) have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.7.2011, Annexure P/1 passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing application of claimants/petitioners for additional evidence. Petitioners have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of their minor son Harpreet Singh in motor vehicle accident.

Petitioners alleged that the instant claim petition and another claim petition arising out of the same accident were consolidated by the Tribunal and evidence of claimants was inadvertently closed without examination of claimant No. 1 Gurmeet Singh of the instant case as witness. Accordingly, permission was sought for examination of Gurmeet Singh claimant as witness. The same has been declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.7.2011 which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that it is essential to examine claimant No. 1 as witness because otherwise case of the claimants would suffer by default and therefore, proposed additional evidence should be allowed.

Counsel for respondent No. 3 however, contended that evidence of claimants was earlier closed on 26.4.2011 but thereafter cross-examination of Santosh claimant of the connected claim petition was allowed and evidence of claimants was closed on 28.5.2011 and thereafter application for additional evidence was moved on 26.7.2011 for which there is no justification.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Motor Vehicles Act is beneficiary legislation for victims of motor vehicles accident. Strict rules of procedure and evidence as applicable in civil cases are not applicable to claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the instant case, examination of claimant No. 1 as witness is essential otherwise claimants would suffer by default. It is apparent that evidence of claimant was closed by the counsel inadvertently without examining claimant of the present claim petition because both the claim petitions have been consolidated. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the claimants for examination of claimant petitioner No. 1 as witness, on payment of costs. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the petitioners for examination of claimant - petitioner No. 1 Gurmeet Singh as witness subject to payment of Rs 1000/- as costs precedent.