RAJESH SHARMA Vs. GURUCHARAN SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred against an order dated 13th May 2005 in Claim Case No. 78/2004 passed by the First Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (M.P.), rejecting the entire claim of the applicant/appellant under Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C. for absence of the claimant/petitioner and his failure to produce witnesses for examination despite availing of sufficient opportunities.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this court is that claim case No. 78/2004 filed by the claimant when was posted on 13th May 2005 for evidence, he was prevented from appearing before the learned tribunal as he shifted his relative to the hospital and in such premises, he could not appear with his witnesses for evidence. Consequently, his claim was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submitted by the counsel that the provisions for award of claim amount for injuries caused in accident is a benevolent law and the claimant could not be deprived of the fruits for such a reason, which is bona fide. Hence, it is prayed that the learned tribunal may be directed to afford only one more opportunity for producing evidence subject to payment of cost, payable to the opponent with such other suitable conditions as the appellate court/tribunal may impose.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the claimant for affording him one more opportunity even on the condition of imposing the cost and on other conditions for leading evidence by the claimant. It is contended by them that the claimant was negligent in not keeping his witnesses present on the last two dates. It is submitted that even on last date when the matter was fixed, neither the claimant nor any of his witnesses were present before the tribunal. No application or any document showing plausible cause for absence of the claimant or his witnesses was filed. In these circumstances, the learned tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition for want of prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal filed against the order impugned is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.