Motor Vehicles Act, 1988–Sec. 166–Permission to produce the additional evidence–Declined to grant–Justification–Petitioners acted with immediacy and diligence by filing the application on the very next hearing date to rectify the inadvertent lapse–To penalse the petitioners for a counsel’s un-intended error, especially when the respondent’s evidence had not commenced, would be wholly unjust and contrary to the fundamental principles of fair adjudication–The eye-witness sought to be examined is a vital and material witness possessing direct and contemporaneous knowledge of the accident–Refusal solely on the ground that the name of eyewitness was not disclosed, reflects an excessively technical approach–Compelling circumstances for allowing the application–Petitioners are permited to examine the eyewitness.
