1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.967/2008 Aashutosh. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.967/2008 Aashutosh. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Date : 8.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Manish Pitaliya, for the appellant. Mr.Jagdish Vyas, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties finally in view of the fact that this Court issued notice for final disposal on 18.7.2008. The appellant/claimant's claim was rejected by the impugned award dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in MACT Case No.12/2008 as the claimant did not gave his own statement in favour of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the appellant's evidence was closed on 16.1.2008 whereas on 15.1.2008 because of the burn case of appellant's grand mother, he could not appear in the 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.967/2008 Aashutosh. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Tribunal on 16.1.2008. The appellant submitted an application along with medical prescription to show that on 15.1.2008, his grand mother was burnt and the appellant was busy in her treatment. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that it is alleged that the accident occurred on 21.2.2000, then the claim petition was submitted in the Tribunal on 22.12.2004 i.e. after more than 4 years period. Thereafter, issues were framed on 26.5.2006. The appellant himself did not appear in the witness box again and again and even the Tribunal granted time to the appellant on payment of costs, yet, the appellant did not appear in the witness box. In total, nine (9) adjournments were granted to the claimants but he did not produce evidence. From 16.1.2008 to 4.2.2008, when the next date was fixed, the appellant did not submit that because of burn case of his grandmother, he could not appear and when the Tribunal heard the arguments and decreed the award, then only, this application has been submitted by the claimant before the Tribunal when the Tribunal became functus officio. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.967/2008 Aashutosh. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. It is worthwhile to mention here that the accident occurred on 21.8.2000 and according to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was taken to the hospital where he informed the doctor that he do not want to register any criminal case. Be it as it may, than the appellant submitted a report to the Police Station, Chittorgarh after more than two months, on 8.11.2000 and prayed for registration of criminal case against the respondents. On this, the appellant was sent to the medical jurist who examined the appellant on 1.12.2000 and this way, the appellant obtained the medical report, copy of which has been filed by him. Along with the claim petition, none of the documents for treatment of the appellant in hospitals have been produced either before the Tribunal nor before this Court in appeal. The explanation for non- production of the documents is that the original documents were lying in the hospital. This argument deserves to be rejected because of the reason that none of the original document has been submitted nor could have been submitted by the claimant along with the claim petition which are on record of the Government offices and their copies only could have been submitted. In view of the above reason, it appears that 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.967/2008 Aashutosh. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. there was no justification for the Tribunal to grant more time to the appellant in the facts and circumstances to produce the evidence and the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petition for want of evidence. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, this appeal having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya