Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Kumar @ Vaneet Bassi vs Gurjit Singh And Others on 8 March, 2011
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.1605/2011
Date of decision: 8.3.2011
Vinay Kumar @ Vaneet Bassi
....................Petitioner
v.
Gurjit Singh and others
.....................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present: Mr.JS Cooner,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)
Claimant/petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula whereby his evidence has been closed by court order.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner met with an accident on 19.10.2008 and received injuries including fracture of back bone/spinal cord as a result of which he suffered paralysis of lower limbs and is bed ridden. He is stated to have taken treatment at Raja Hospital,Nawanshahar and thereafter at DMC Ludhiana. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in which he has so far examined 5 witnesses. It is further submitted that only two witnesses namely Dr.A.K.Chaudhary, Department of Neurosurgery, DMC Ludhiana and Receipt Clerk/Owner of Dutta Brothers (Drug Store) New Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana are required to be examined for which the petitioner has already deposited the necessary charges. It is next submitted that the examination of these two witnesses is crucial for the just and fair decision of the claim petition filed by the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order dated 25.2.2011 be set aside and the petitioner be granted adequate opportunities to examine the aforesaid two witnesses.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the physical condition of the petitioner as also nature of litigation, in my opinion, ends of justice would be fully met in case petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to lead his remaining evidence.
Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 25.2.2011 is set aside and the claimant/petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to lead his remaining evidence on two dates to be fixed by the trial Court.
No costs.
8.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge