RAM SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The claim petition of the appellant was dismissed vide orders impugned in this appeal mainly on the ground that no evidence was led in the case. The record reveals that after framing of issues on 16.11.1991 the case was adjourned for recording evidence of the claimant. The claimant had also filed an application for summoning of two doctor-witnesses which was allowed on 12.12.1991. As no doctor was served, the case was adjourned on 11.2.1992 to 29.4.1992 for summoning the witnesses of the claimant. It appears to us that thereafter the case was referred to Pre-Lok Adalat but without any result and ultimately the file was received back by the Tribunal. On 12.3.1992, the case was adjourned to 19.5.1992, for evidence of the claimant at his own responsibility despite the fact that application for summoning the doctor witnesses had been allowed and the appellant had also deposited diet money etc. The learned Tribunal appears to have rushed in the proceedings and passed the award without looking into the records of the case. The Tribunal was under legal obligation to summon the witnesses for which an application had been made and expenses deposited. The award passed by the Tribunal cannot be justified. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award is setaside. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh after summoning the witnesses of the appellant and affording him further opportunity to lead evidence. The respondents shall also be at liberty to produce evidence in rebuttal, if any. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.5.1994 directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.5.1994.