VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short the 'Tribunal') dismissing the three applications filed by the claimants.
(2.) THE petitioner had moved three applications. First application was to give liberty to the respondent-Insurance Company to verify the documents through web site, telephonically or in any other manner. This application was filed on 3.3.2004. However, the same was not decided by the learned Tribunal. The second application was moved on 25.11.2004 for appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording the statements of witnesses regarding income, salary and expenses on medical treatment of the deceased and injured claimants. Along with this application an application was also moved to lead additional evidence. The petitioner had placed on record the documents duly authenticated by the Notary Public regarding the salary and income tax record of Rupinder Kaur, deceased as well as of the applicant Minni Thind and Tapinder Thind with a request to the Insurance Company to verify the same through web site or telephonically or in any other manner. However, the Insurance Company did not verify the same and, therefore, a request was made that a local Commissioner be appointed to verify the said documents including record of income-tax and medical treatment for just and proper adjudication of the case. It was further claimed that Shri Deepinder Singh Thind is still under treatment. The application for additional evidence was also made to prove these documents by appointment of a Local Commissioner as the proof of income of late Smt. Rupinder Kaur as well as the injured applicants including their medical evidence was necessary for assessment of the compensation payable to them. In order to explain the delay it was pleaded that earlier similar application was moved with the hope that the Insurance Company would get the same verified. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground that the parties have closed their evidence and further that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court as to why the said application was moved after such a long period. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the evidence sought to be produced now was within the knowledge of the claimants when they were leading their evidence and, therefore, the Local Commissioner cannot be sent to Canada to collect the evidence regarding these documents.
(3.) MR . S.S. Swaich, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal primarily on the ground that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner as the necessary documents were produced on record well in time with liberty to the Insurance Company to get the same verified. It was on account of this that the application could not be moved earlier. It was also claimed that the learned Tribunal was not right in rejecting the application merely on account of delay though the documents sought to be proved were necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case.;