HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 MO. 7209/2011 PET3TIONBRS CLAIMANTS 4. Rajkuman @ Racakuman Rajware, aged about 36 years, widow of Late Suresh Kumar Rafware Girwrar Prasad Rajware, aged about 18 years, son ot Late Suresh Kumar Rajware Arun Kuinar Rajware, aged about 14 years, son of Late Suresh Kiunar Rajware Vivek Kuuiar Rajware, aged about 12 years, son of Late Suresh Kumar Rajware, Petitioners No, 3 and 4 are miuors, tbrough fheir natural guardian Mother Rajkumari Ramkuinari Rajware, Wd/o Late Suresh Kumar Rajware AU are resident of Plas, Rajkishore Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. BiIaspur(C.G.). Chintamaiu, aged about 30 years, son ofSiyaraia, R/o Bhajatapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). Vishiiu Ram Sahu, (Age not toaown to the Petitioner), S/o Shri Mitthu Ram Sahu, R/o Raja Talab, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur(CG). The Branch Manaypr, Chola Maudalaiu General Insurance Co. Ltd, First Ploor, Hiaduja Coinplex, 22, Paras Nagar Chowk, Near Railway Line, Deveadra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). WK1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. :Hoa'Me SSt. T.P.Sharma, J.) VEI^US RESPONDBNTS Present:- Mr. N.P. Chandravanshi, Advocate with Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not noticed. ORDBR (Passedoa 02/12/2011) 1. By tbis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriely of the order dated 13/10/2011 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, BUaspur (C.G.) (in short 'Claiins Tribunal') in claun case 1] . -i- No. 13/2011 wbereby appUcation for adjoumment for adducing evidence filed on behatfofthe petitioners has been disniissed. Mr. N.P. Chandravaushi, Advocate wifh Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners is heard. Learaed counsel for the petitioners subiuits that petitioners/ claimaats of claun. petition had regular paid piocess fees for issuaace ofbaUable warrant to the witaess but on 3/9/2011 due to bona&de mistake fhey have not paid P.F. For decision ofiacome of the deccased evidence of Junior Engineer along with record wotdd be necessaiy, m. absence of his exaiuuiation serious prejudice would be caused to fhe petitioners. Oider impugned, copy of fhe claim petition, appUcation and other documents perused. Petitioners are legal representatives/claimauts ofdeceased Suresh Kuniar Rajware with a view to cause justice Claims Tribunal are required to take Uberal view aad Uberal approach, they should not be to technical il' aforesaid witness 1s not examiued on behalf of the petitioners then Claims Tribunal would not be in position to assess inconie of fhe deceased aad it would not be possible for Clauxis Tnbunal to award adequate coinpensation. Considenng the aforesaid circuoista&ces Clafcms Tribxuial ought to have aUowed fhe application aad by not atlowuig appUcation Clatms Tribunal has coinmitted an iUegality. Claims Tribunal are serious for early disposal of claitn case, in these circumstaaces issuance of notice to ftie respondents and observaace of procedural law would be futite exercise. Consequently, petition is aUowed. Order dated 13/10/2011 is inodified to fhe extent indicated Clanns Tribunal shaU provide reasonable opportuiuty to fhe petitioneis for adduciag their evidence. Clauiis Tribunal has already issued bailable warrant even otherwise Claims Tribunal is under obUgation to secure fhe attendance of tbe witness who is not conipty ftie order of fhe Court or erring Ofl&cer who has faUed to service warraut upon witaess. No order. as to costs. Certi&ed copy as per rules. T.P. Sharma ..<i' Bs