Phool Chand vs Harpal Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Claimant-Phool Chand, who has filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 12.02.2013 Annexure P-1 and order dated 16.05.2013 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short, Tribunal). By order Annexure P-1 evidence of the claimant was closed by Court order whereas by order Annexure P-2, application Annexure P-3 moved by the claimant petitioner for summoning Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent as Court witness has been dismissed.

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

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for summoning concerned Doctor/official with record to prove his disability certificate.

I have carefully considered the prayer. The conduct of the claimant petitioner has not been above board. He did not file revision petition to challenge order Annexure P-1 initially and rather moved application Annexure P-3 which was also moved belatedly. The said application was also misconceived for summoning the Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent as Court witness instead of seeking additional evidence.

However having said as aforesaid, it has to be noticed that the Motor Vehicles Act contains beneficial provision for victims of accidents to claim compensation. It should not be curtailed by technicalities or procedural niceties. Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the claimant was granted four or five opportunities for his evidence. Proving of disability certificate is essential for adjudicating the amount of just compensation to which the petitioner may be entitled to.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is given to the petitioner for producing proposed evidence, subject to payment of costs.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the claim petition and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed and learned Tribunal is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the claimant-petitioner to produce his aforesaid evidence. The petitioner shall be responsible to produce the same although assistance of the Court may be taken in summoning the witness but not more than one effective opportunity shall be granted to the claimant for the same. Claimant shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs precedent.