Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjit Kaur And Another vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 22 September, 2011

Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

CR No.4397 of 2011                                              [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                      AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH.



                              Civil Revision No.4397 of 2011

                              Date of Decision: 22 - 9 - 2011



Manjit Kaur and another                                ....Petitioners

                              v.

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation                       ....Respondents
and another


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                              ***

Present:    Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Ms.Pooja Goyal, Advocate for
            Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate
            for respondent No.1.

            None for respondent No.2.

                              ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 13.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby the request of the petitioners to produce PW3 Bharpur Singh for cross-examination has been declined.

Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are unfortunate parents, who had lost their son aged 24½ years in an accident. It is stated that the deceased had obtained degree of B.Tech. and was a student of Master in Business Administration in Thapar College, Patiala. CR No.4397 of 2011 [2] Counsel states that for the claimant-petitioners to examine PW3 Bharpur Singh is very necessary as he was an eye witness of the occurrence. Counsel states that due to excessive rain, Bharpur Singh was held up at Rudar Paryag, Uttranchal. Therefore, his non appearance on the day when the evidence was closed, was not willful but was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the witness of the petitioners.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 states that various opportunities were granted to the claimant-petitioners, who have failed to conclude their evidence.

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, one opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to produce PW3 Bharpur Singh at their own risk and responsibility.

Consequently, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is set aside. On the next date of hearing, the petitioners shall produce Bharpur Singh PW3 to facilitate his cross- examination at their own risk and responsibility.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 22, 2011. JUDGE RC