FAJARBI @ HAJARBI Vs. JAMEEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P -1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which application of the Petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal.

(3.) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the present is a claim petition and that Petitioner being widow, could not secure the presence of the witnesses earlier. It has further been contended that P Ws Umar Mohd. and Gafur, who were the eye witnesses of the accident as the FIR was also lodged by Umar Mohd. and Gafur was an injured witness, are necessary witnesses to be examined in this case. Due to negligence of counsel for the Petitioner, evidence of the Petitioner was closed and hence, it is contended that due to negligence of the counsel, Petitioner being widow, cannot be made to suffer. Moreover, strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal and that only general principles are applicable.