Dr. Surjit Angra v. Subodh Kumar Singh & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 18th, 2025 Surjit Angra

...Petitioner

Versus

Subodh Kumar Singh and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Nitin Katoria, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the MACT, Ambala, vide which the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the claimant, who had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. It is submitted that the petitioner has examined six witnesses and inadvertently did not examine the doctor from the Disability Board, Ambala, Clerk from the Fortis Hospital to prove the bills of the hospital and official from Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, although an application for examining the

said witnesses was given to the Court and even the diet money was deposited. It is submitted that the claimant also could not be examined inadvertently. It is submitted that any delay in the proceedings would primarily prejudice the petitioner as it is his claim petition. It is submitted that the evidence of the said witnesses is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case and to do substantial justice between the parties and has thus, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and two effective opportunities be given to the petitioner to examine the said witnesses with the help of the Court.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in the present case, nine opportunities were granted to the petitioner, out of which three were last opportunities and petitioner should have examined all the witnesses at the time of leading his own evidence. It is submitted that in case two effective opportunities are to be given to the petitioner, heavy cost for having delayed the proceedings be imposed upon him. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost.

5.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and the application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence and examining doctor from the Disability Board, Ambala, Clerk

from the Fortis Hospital to prove the bills of the hospital, official from Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, as well as the claimant are permitted to be examined in additional evidence subject to the petitioner depositing cost of 15,000/- within a period of two weeks from today, which ₹ will be released to the respondents No.1 and 2 in equal proportion i.e. 7,500/- each. The trial Court would grant two effective opportunities to the ₹ petitioner and it would be open to the petitioner to take the assistance of the trial Court for the summoning of the official witnesses in accordance with law.

November 18th, 2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No