PINKI Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 15th March, 1991, passed by the Additional District Judge Kurukshetra, in a case pertaining to grant of claim on account of death of Joginder Pal under the Motor Vehicles Act. Brief facts giving rise to this revision necessarily need mention.

(2.) Joginder Pal in his prime youth died on 19th September, 1989. An application for grant of compensation on account of death of Joginder Pal who died in a road accident, was filed before the District Judge, exercising the powers of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on 12th December, 1989. The foresaid applications was filed by the petitioners, who are widow and two minor children of the deceased, as also mother and five sisters, who respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in this petition. The petitioners has engaged Sh. S.K. Sabharwal, Advocate, to represent them. However, during the course of trial, when the petitioners discovered that the petition was drafted such a way it might result into grant of compensation to mother and sisters of the deceased and the petitioners may be left to share only a smaller portion of the compensation, they engaged their own layers, Sarvshri J.K. Dhingra and Narinder Parashar. An application for amendment of the claim application was filed by the petitioners through the lawyers aforesaid, but the same was dismissed by Shri P.C. Gupta, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, on 15th February, 1991. The operative part of the order aforesaid runs thus :

(3.) It is an admitted position that by the time the aforesaid order came into being or immediately thereafter on the same day, the petitioners had filed an application, wherein they had prayed that before recording evidence of the respondents, they should be granted an opportunity to lead evidence inasmuch as there was inter se clash between them and respondents 1 to 6 and the evidence after recording statements of Smt. Shanti Devi and Sh. Shakat Singh had since already been closed by respondents 1 to 6. If the application aforesaid was there before the Court prior to passing of the order impugned in this petition, then in no circumstances the matter could be adjourned for recording evidence of the respondents before deciding the said application. Even if the said application was filed immediately thereafter, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the same and in the facts and circumstances of this case allowed the said application.