Ami Lal And Others vs Rajiv Kumar And Another on 7 September, 2009

C.R.No.3025 of 2009


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                            C.R.No.3025 of 2009.
                            Decided on: September 07, 2009.



Ami Lal and others

                                                       .. Petitioners

                 VERSUS


Rajiv Kumar and another

                                                    .. Respondents

                            ***


CORAM:           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI


PRESENT          Mr.Diwan S.Adlakha, Advocate,
                 for the petitioners.


M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order, an application filed by the

claimants-petitioners, for production of additional evidence has been

dismissed, on the ground that the petitioners have not been diligent

enough in pursuing their petition. A perusal of the impugned order

indicates that the petitioners have filed a claim petition before the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for grant of compensation on

account of death of Satish Kumar son of petitioner, which was

caused in an accident on 20.01.2006. The owner of the vehicle has

… 1
C.R.No.3025 of 2009

been proceeded against ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. The

petitioners want to establish the ownership of the motorcycle of

respondent No.1, by proving the Bill of Purchase and other relevant

record showing that the motorcycle had been purchased by the

owner from Malik Automobile, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. The

petitioners have pleaded that motorcycle bearing Registration

No.HR-02P/8845, Engine No.84531, Chassis No.07681, involved in

the accident was owned by respondent. In order to establish the

ownership of respondent No.1, the petitioners have put

interrogatories. The said application was dismissed by the claims

Tribunal.

In view of the owner of the offending vehicle

involved in the accident, being ex parte and there is no evidence on

the record having been produced regarding the ownership of the

offending vehicle, it will be difficult for the claims Tribunal to

adjudicate the real controversy regarding the liability in case the

petition is allowed. The owner of the vehicle has got a statutory

liability, as such, the petitioners should have been given permission

to lead evidence to establish the ownership of the offending vehicle.

The revision petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 12.05.2009, is set aside and it is ordered that the

petitioners will be given opportunity to lead evidence to establish the

ownership of the alleged offending vehicle.

Interim order passed by this Court is vacated.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court

… 2
C.R.No.3025 of 2009

on 19.09.2009. Thereafter, the matter will be taken up for further

proceedings in accordance with law.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
September 07, 2009.

rka

… 3