Karam Singh vs Mukesh And Others on 28 August, 2009

Civil Revision No. 4893 of 2009                                   1



         In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                          Civil Revision No. 4893 of 2009
                          Date of decision: 28.8.2009

Karam Singh
                                                       ......petitioner

                          Versus


Mukesh and others
                                                     .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:     Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                   ****

SABINA, J.

Petitioner Karam Singh has filed claim petition under

Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act bearing No.60/09,

claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the

motor vehicle accident. Vide the impugned order dated 18.8.2009

passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Karnal

(Annexure P-1), the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by

order. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India,.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

affidavit of the witness now sought to be examined had already been

placed on record but due to inadvertence, he could not be examined
Civil Revision No. 4893 of 2009 2

by the petitioner. PW- Satish Kumar was very necessary to be

examined in this case as he had witnessed the alleged accident.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner would

examine the witness on 4.9.2009, the date fixed before the Tribunal.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of

the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed.

The interest of justice demands that the petitioner should

be given an opportunity to examine PW- Satish Kumar, who is

alleged to be an eye witness to the accident. The respondents can

be compensated with costs. When substantial justice and technical

considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial

justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on

account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but is

capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is

allowed to examine PW-Satish Kumar on 4.9.2009, the date fixed

before the Tribunal subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as costs. No

further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to lead his

evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed further with the

case in accordance with law.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

August 28, 2009
anita