// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2278/2008 Mona Bai @ Mohini Daughter of Shri Jagdish Kharwal Versus Narpal Singh Son of Hukam Singh and Another Date of Order ::: 24.10.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ritesh Jain, Counsel for appellant Shri N.S. Rathore, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri N.S. Rathore, Advocate, appears for both the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal, on behalf of the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the impugned Award dated 13th November, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition for want of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that a claim petition was preferred before the Tribunal in respect of accident took place on 11.04.2006 arising out of use of motor vehicle wherein the claimant sustained injuries // 2 // due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No.1 Driver. The non-claimant No.1 remained absent despite service of notice, therefore, ex-pate proceedings were drawn against him on 27th September, 2006. The non- claimant No.2 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed its reply to the claim petition; thereafter case was fixed and issues were framed on 22nd January, 2007 and case was fixed for applicant's evidence on 19th March, 2007; on that date the Presiding Officer was on leave and on the next date i.e. 14.05.2007 also he remained on leave; the case was fixed for 10th July, 2007 but on that date the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) and there it was fixed for 6th August, 2007; the claimant sought time on 6th August, 2007 for producing evidence and the case was fixed for 3rd September, 2007 but on that date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 3rd October, 2007 and on that date a prayer was made on behalf of the appellant for grant of time to lead evidence, but the same was refused and evidence was closed; thereafter the Tribunal heard the arguments and dismissed the claim petition for want of evidence in support of her claim. The learned counsel for the appellant // 3 // contended that from the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that although the case remained pending for applicant's evidence from January to October, 2007 but on most of the dates either the Presiding Officer remained on leave or the case could not be taken-up on account of its transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track); he contended that it being a claim case, the Tribunal ought to have granted one more opportunity instead of closing the claimant's evidence on 3rd October, 2007. He, therefore, argued that the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal be set-aside and the case be remanded back granting one more opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence in support of her claim. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in support of the claim petition but no evidence was adduced and even the statement of claimant was not recorded, therefore, the Tribunal committed no illegality in closing the evidence of the appellant and rejecting her claim petition itself for want of evidence. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined // 4 // the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred the certified copies of the order-sheets of the Tribunal from 31st July, 2006 to 13th November, 2007, which have been taken on the record. From the orders-sheets, referred to above, the aforesaid facts, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, appears to be correct. The learned counsel for the respondents has also not disputed the facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. The case remained pending for appellant's evidence from March, 2007 to October, 2007 but on three dates the Presiding Officer was on leave and on one date the case could not be taken up on account of its transfer to another Court. In fact, the claimant sought time only on two dates to lead her evidence. The present matter relates to claim of claimant in respect of injuries sustained by her in the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, which is a social and welfare legislation. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet in case one more opportunity is granted to the claimant to // 5 // adduce her evidence in support of the claim petition. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment dated 13th November, 2007 passed by the Tribunal is set-aside. The case is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, with a direction to grant an opportunity to the claimant to adduce evidence in support of her claim petition, on 26th, 27th and 28th of November, 2008. It is made clear that in case the claimant-appellant fails to adduce her evidence on these dates then the same will be deemed to have been closed and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted, and the Tribunal will be free to pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with the law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25th November, 2008 and no fresh notice will be given to any of the parties. No order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//