Allowed

Amrik Singh v. Janak Yadav & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2010CR/5134/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a belated revision petition under Article 226 directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to grant one more opportunity to claimants to lead evidence at their own responsibility on payment of costs, despite the petition being filed after a long delay.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; Tribunal directed to grant one more opportunity for lead evidence at own responsibility on payment of Rs. 2500 costs; no notice to respondents.

Amrik Singh Vs Janak Yadav & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No.5134 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.5134 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010

Amrik Singh

.……Petitioner

Versus

Janak Yadav and others ……Respondents

¶9

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶10

Present: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for Mr. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶12

Claimant No.1-Amrik Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana thereby closing the evidence of claimants (petitioner and proforma respondent Nos.5 to 9) by Court order.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the claimants for their evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs.

¶14

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. The instant revision petition has been filed 6 ½ months after the passing of the impugned order and is, therefore, highly belated. On that ground, the revision petition is in fact liable to dismissal being barred by delay and laches. However, claimants have filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for death of their kin in accident and if the claimants are not allowed another opportunity to lead their evidence, their claim petition would be dismissed on the ground of 'no evidence'. Perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in the revision petition reveals that

¶15

C.R. No.5134 of 2010

¶16

-2-

¶17

examination-in-chief of two witnesses of the claimants was recorded and their cross-examination was deferred as copies of the affidavits of examination-in-chief had not been supplied to opposite counsel in advance. On the next date of hearing also, their cross-examination was deferred on the same ground, although the copies of affidavits had been supplied. Thereafter, on one date of hearing, the said witnesses were present, but Court time was over. However, thereafter on next two dates of hearing, the witnesses were not produced. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the aforesaid prayer made by counsel for the petitioner by granting another opportunity to the claimants to lead their evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs.

¶18

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the claim petition and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them.

¶19

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the learned Claims Tribunal is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the claimants to lead their evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs precedent. Claimants may take assistance of the Tribunal to summon evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the claimants for their evidence even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever.

¶20

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶21

17.08.2010 A. Kaundal

Amrik Singh v. Janak Yadav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Janak Yadav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs Agintha Sahib Mahant Sadhu Ram

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot.

Vinod Kumar Vs Devdutt and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs Anita Rani

Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. Vs Dalip Kaur & Anr.

Ghisu Ram Vs Mahender Singh