// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9936/2008 Ranjeet Lal S/o Shri Moti Lal Meena and Another Versus The Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar and Others Date of Order ::: 12.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for Shri Manu Bhargava, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The claimant-respondents filed an application for compensation wherein their evidence was closed on 18th August, 2004. The claimant-respondents, therefore, filed an application to allow them to adduce their evidence. The application was contested by the non-claimant/petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 24th July, 2008 on payment of costs, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the non-claimants. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that due opportunity was given to the claimants to adduce their evidence but they // 2 // failed to adduce the same, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in closing their evidence and, in these circumstances, there was no justification to allow the claimants to lead their evidence again and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I have examined the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the light of submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The Tribunal has observed that only two opportunities were given to the claimants to lead their evidence. The matter relates to compensation and, it being a beneficial legislation, the interest of injured persons is to be protected. The Tribunal, while exercising its jurisdiction, allowed the application in the interest of justice. So far as delay occurred on behalf of the claimants is concerned, the same was compensated by the Tribunal by awarding costs. I do no find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, // 3 // interfere with finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re- appreciating it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim – AIR 1984 SC 38, held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//