Judgment:
Civil Revision No.1031 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1031 of 2014 Date of Decision:11.02.2014 Amrik Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Harpreet Singh @ Gurpreet Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-claimant-Amrik Kaur wife of Mangal Singh(for brevity “the claimant”.) has instituted the petition to claim the compensation on account of multiple injuries, sustained by her in a motor accident, in question, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Harpreet Singh @ Gurpreet Singh son of Mukhtar Singh, while driving the offending vehicle of respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.
2. Having framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the claim-petition was slated for evidence of the claimant. The claimant has moved an application to summon the doctor from Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, to prove her disability certificate. The doctor did not turn-up and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short the Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1031 of 2014 2 MACT”.) closed the evidence of the claimant, by means of impugned order dated 21.01.2014(Annexure P-1).
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-claimant has preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. At the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to contesting respondent Nos. 1 & 3, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the claim-petition, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context, whereas ex-parte proceedings were ordered against respondent No.2. Be that as it may, however, in case, respondent Nos.1 & 3 are aggrieved by the order, in any manner, they would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect.
6. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner claimed that she has sustained multiple injuries and suffered permanent disability in the motor accident, in question. It is not a matter of dispute that she has moved an application, to summon the doctor from Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, to prove her disability certificate. The doctor did not turn up. Instead of re-summoning the doctor, the MACT committed a legal Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1031 of 2014 3 mistake, to close the evidence of the claimant. Moreover, the evidence of the doctor was very much essential, to prove the injuries/disability on the person of the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, injury and disability suffered by the petitioner-claimant and explanation put-forth, the MACT ought to have granted one more opportunity to the claimant, to produce her evidence. If adequate opportunities are not granted to the claimant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to her case. Above all, no prejudice was going to be caused to contesting respondent Nos.1 & 3, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.01.2014(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The MACT is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the claimant and summon the doctor to prove her disability certificate. However, this would be subject to the payment of `2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by the petitioner-claimant to the contesting respondents. February 11, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh