GAJANAND PRASAD PANDEY Vs. ALKA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Claimant's appeal against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Case No. 161/2011, whereby, an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. filed by the Claimant seeking adjournment of the claim case on the ground that he is suffering from sciatica rejected by the Tribunal and consequently his claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has also been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Claimant/Appellant submits that the Appellant was 73 years of age when he filed application under 17 Rule 1 C.P.C seeking adjournment of the case for the purpose of recording his evidence as he was not physically fit to appear before the Tribunal for giving his evidence. However, the Tribunal without considering the genuine difficulty of the Appellant and the benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act rejected the said application and consequently the claim petition of the Appellant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing and of adducing evidence to the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 supported the award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that as per order-sheet dated 18.07.2012, it has been categorically mentioned that five opportunities of hearing were given to the Claimant/Appellant on earlier occasions to adduce evidence, but at all times, the Appellant was said to be ill and did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the Appellant by the impugned order which needs no interference by this Court.