BALWINDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

(2.) The learned Tribunal has closed the evidence of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the list of witnesses earlier and the application for summoning of the four witnesses has been filed on the date fixed for evidence.

(3.) The approach of the learned Tribunal closing the evidence of the petitioner is wholly unjustified. The procedure before the Tribunal is summary in nature but that does not mean that the rights of the claimant are to be defeated only because the claimant has failed to summon the witnesses earlier. The claimant has suffered serious injury in the motor vehicle accident and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect of the case while dealing with such cases.