PHOOL CHAND Vs. HARPAL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT -Phool Chand, who has filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 12.02.2013 Annexure P -1 and order dated 16.05.2013 Annexure P -2 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short, Tribunal). By order Annexure P -1 evidence of the claimant was closed by Court order whereas by order Annexure P -2, application Annexure P -3 moved by the claimant petitioner for summoning Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent as Court witness has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) I have carefully considered the prayer. The conduct of the claimant petitioner has not been above board. He did not file revision petition to challenge order Annexure P -1 initially and rather moved application Annexure P -3 which was also moved belatedly. The said application was also misconceived for summoning the Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent as Court witness instead of seeking additional evidence.