Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sukhdev Kumar Vs. Harjinder Singh and ors.

Sukhdev Kumar vs Harjinder Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jammu and Kashmir Decided Apr 26, 2006
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901079

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhdev Kumar

Respondent

Harjinder Singh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Sukhdev Kumar v. Jagjit Singh and Anr
Reported In
2007(1)JKJ517

Excerpt

- .....fixed for the purpose by the tribunal.3. sh. d.s. chouhan objects to the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submits that no laxity can be given to the appellant because he had failed to lead evidence, when provided opportunity in this behalf.4. i have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.5. chapter xii of motor vehicles act, 1988, is a welfare legislation and aims, at providing requisite relief to those who are the victims of motor vehicle accidents. claims tribunals constituted under chapter xii of the act, are, thus, required to adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach in addressing the real pinch which an injured or the dependents of a deceased suffer because of the motor vehicle accidents. sufficient opportunity is, thus, required to be provided to an injured/dependents to prove their case.6. ex-debito justitiae, an opportunity is, thus, required to be afforded to the appellant to prove his case before the tribunal. the impugned judgment, in so far as it pertains to claims petition no. 44/2001, is set aside and claim petition no. 44/2001 revived. the claims tribunals shall provide fresh opportunity to the appellant to appear as his own witness in the case and another opportunity to produce his evidence that he may like to support his claim. the claims tribunal shall fix two dates, one for the evidence of the appellant/claimant and the second for the statement of the appellant/claimant. after the closure of evidence of the appellant, the respondents shall be provided opportunity of leading evidence. the tribunal is expected to decide the dispute expeditiously.

Full Judgment

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 22.11.2005 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in so far as it rejects Claims Petition No. 44/2001 titled 'Sukhdev Kumar v. Jagjit Singh and Anr'.

2. Sh. P.S. Chandel appearing for the appellant submits that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had been harsh in closing the evidence of the appellant, who could not appear as his own witness in the case because of reasons beyond his control. He further submits that the injuries suffered by the appellant and his inability to reach the Tribunal on the date fixed for leading evidence have not been considered by the Tribunal, which has hastened to close the evidence resulting dismissal of his claim petition. Sh. Chandel seeks opportunity for the appellant to appear as his own witness before the Tribunal and to produce such other evidence which he may produce on the date fixed for the purpose by the Tribunal.

3. Sh. D.S. Chouhan objects to the submission of learned Counsel for appellant and submits that no laxity can be given to the appellant because he had failed to lead evidence, when provided opportunity in this behalf.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Chapter XII of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a welfare legislation and aims, at providing requisite relief to those who are the victims of motor vehicle accidents. Claims Tribunals constituted under Chapter XII of the Act, are, thus, required to adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach in addressing the real pinch which an injured or the dependents of a deceased suffer because of the motor vehicle accidents. Sufficient opportunity is, thus, required to be provided to an injured/dependents to prove their case.

6. Ex-debito justitiae, an opportunity is, thus, required to be afforded to the appellant to prove his case before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment, in so far as it pertains to Claims Petition No. 44/2001, is set aside and Claim Petition No. 44/2001 revived. The Claims Tribunals shall provide fresh opportunity to the appellant to appear as his own witness in the case and another opportunity to produce his evidence that he may like to support his claim. The Claims Tribunal shall fix two dates, one for the evidence of the appellant/claimant and the second for the statement of the appellant/claimant. After the closure of evidence of the appellant, the respondents shall be provided opportunity of leading evidence. The Tribunal is expected to decide the dispute expeditiously.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial