Sarabjit Kaur vs Pappu and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—The scooter of the husband of the claimant/Petitioner met with a motor vehicular accident on 3.2.2004 with the three wheeler (offending vehicle) driven and owned by Respondents 2 and 3 respectively. At that time Petitioner was undertaking journey as a pillion rider on the said scooter. In the accident she allegedly suffered "Cord Edema at C.5 level" for which she remained hospitalised for several days and is allegedly still undergoing treatment. It is further alleged that she has suffered 100% disability. With these allegations, she filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 2004. It is further alleged that for the injuries suffered in the said accident the Petitioner who is still undergoing treatment incurred medical expenses during the period from 14.9.2009 to 12.4.2010. The claim petition is reportedly at the argument stage. Petitioner moved two applications-one for placing on record the medical bills pertaining to the period from 14.9.2009 to 12.4.2010; and another application for examining 9 witnesses to prove the expenses incurred by her on the said treatment. However, both her applications were dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.5.2010 by the learned MACT, Ludhiana. Hence the present revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned MACT has erred in dismissing both the applications on the ground that the Petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that in fact the Petitioner being a claimant is very much interested in early disposal of her claim petition, but at the same time she cannot afford to suffer a loss of about Rs. 1.44 lacs, as the bills sought to be placed on record amount to Rs. 1.44 lacs approximately.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the impugned order is just and legal and warrants No. interference by this Court.

After hearing counsel for both the parties and going through the impugned order, in my opinion, the present revision petition is liable to be accepted and Petitioner deserves at least some reasonable opportunity to placed on record the aforesaid medical bills and examine the necessary witnesses in that regard since they relate to periods post closing of the evidence by the claimant/Petitioner and have a direct bearing on determination of compensation.

It is not disputed that the proceedings u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is equally undisputed and well settled proposition of law that the proceedings u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act are more of an enquiry rather than an adversarial trial and are not strictly subjected to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

It is case of the Petitioner that she suffered "Cord Edema at C.5 level" for which she remained hospitalised for several days and is allegedly still undergoing treatment. It is during her ongoing treatment that she allegedly incurred medical expenses to the tune of about Rs. 1.44 lacs. In order to prove the said expenses she wants to place on record the medical bills and to examine certain witnesses. In my opinion, by No. stretch of reasoning or imagination it can be said that Petitioner would, in any manner, gain by delaying the proceedings. Thus, in my opinion, it would be just and expedient in the interest of justice to grant the Petitioner at least two effective opportunities to place on record the aforesaid medical bills and examine the witnesses to prove the same. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 is set aside and the Petitioner is permitted to place on record the medical bills for the period from 14.9.2009 to 12.4.2010. She is further given two effective opportunities at her own responsibility to examine the witnesses to prove the said bills, on dates to be fixed by the learned MACT, Ludhiana. Respondents shall, if need be, also given equal opportunity to rebut the same.

The revision petition stands disposed of.