KAPUR CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was served through publication but even after the publication, nobody has appeared. Nobody has been appearing for respondent No. 1 although duly served.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed vide order dated 8-8-2003 on account of the fact that the appellants failed to lead any evidence. Counsel for the appellant contends that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellants to produce their evidence and just after one date, the Tribunal has proceeded to finally dispose of the matter.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. The appellants have filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 24 lacs towards compensation for death of their son Mr. Ramesh Chand who died on 12-10-2000 after being hit by the truck bearing registration No. HR-26-GA-0761 driven by respondent No. 2 Sh. Mamman, rashly and negligently. FIR No. 333/2000 was duly registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under section 304a IPC and the parents of the deceased had filed the said compensation. The issues in the said case were framed by the tribunal vide order dated 14-5-2001 and the matter was adjourned to 12-10-2001 when the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave and then the matter was adjourned to 8-3-2002. On 8-3-2002, statement of appellant No. 1 was recorded for consideration and grant of interim maintenance and the matter was adjourned for 9-9-2002 for further evidence of the appellants. On the said date, the file was directed to be placed before the other Presiding Officer due to the said case being transferred. On 21-1-2003, no PW was present nor summoned and the matter was adjourned for 1-5-2003. On 1-5-2003 again the appellant did not produce any evidence and the matter was adjourned for 8-8-2003. On 8-8-2003 again, no witness on behalf of the appellants were present and the Tribunal without giving any further opportunity to the appellants, closed the evidence of the appellants and on the same date itself passed the impugned judgment.