Hukam Singh & Anr. v. Karamjit Singh & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 21 Apr 2009
- Bench
- JASWANT SINGH
Outcome
Allowed
Petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners-claimants have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by the learned MACT Panchkula whereby their evidence was closed and case was dismissed for want of prosecution; and order dated 31.3.2009 whereby the application filed on the same date for recalling of the order dated 28.11.2008 was also dismissed. Petitioners-parents of their unmarried deceased son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on 30.8.2007, wherein issues were framed on 24.10.2008 by the learned MACT, Panchkula. Learned counsel submits that the first date fixed for the evidence of the claimants was 10.11.2008. Since no witness for the claimants was present, case was adjourned for 28.11.2008 and on the very next date i.e 28.11.2008, the impugned order closing the evidence of the petitioners-claimants was passed as neither the counsel for the claimants nor the claimants nor any witness of the claimants was present on the date fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants submits that on C.R.No.2170 of 2009 #2#
Operative part
28.11.2008, petitioners had been late in reaching the court premises as he had to come from his village and, therefore, could not be present, when the case was called for the first time and when the case was called for the second time, he had gone to call his counsel from his chamber. Therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in closing the evidence of the petitioners by observing that the petitioners is lax in prosecuting his case. Learned counsel further submits that an application dated 28.11.2008 was moved by the petitioners soon after the order had been passed, which has also been illegally dismissed vide the impugned order dated 31.3.2009. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners-claimants will not gain anything from delaying the matter and, therefore, prays for grant of opportunities to lead his evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the claim petition as well besides burdening the other party with unnecessarily litigation expenses. In the facts of the case, the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal is quite harsh. The claim of the claimants under beneficial legislation cannot be scuttled by adopting hyper technical approach. In my opinion, the poor claimants are already harassed a lot and it is noticed that at times it is difficult for them to ensure the presence of the witnesses required for proving the accident as well as the medical claims. Courts should endeavour to advance the cause of justice rather than subvert it. C.R.No.2170 of 2009 #3# Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by the learned MACT Panchkula closing the evidence and also the subsequent order dated 31.3.2009 are set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to grant at least two effective opportunities to the petitioners to lead his entire evidence on dates to be fixed by the learned Tribunal subject to total payment of Rs.500/- as costs to be deposited with State Legal Services Authority, Haryana. Petition stands allowed. April 21, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Apr 2009. The bench was JASWANT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.