IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P. (U.A. 2271NO. S 6 Q^ 6f 2009 PETITIONER/ APPLICANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1. <• ^•'>st??'/ • ^•' «?? ^•y ^ *' ^"^ t?'-" 3. leBench Ratnesh Lal, S/o Shri Rafaitlal^ aged about 35 years, R/b Dipupara, Vidya Upnagar, Bilaspur, Thana-Tarbahar, BilaSpzir, Talisil 8s District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar, S/o Sitaram. Rathore, aged about 35 years, Occupation-Driver, R/o VUlage Budgahan, Baloda, P.S.-Baloda, Distnct-Janjgu--Chatnpa (C.G.) At present T/A Pa.njaf Extehsion,. Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) Devcharan Rathore, S/o Shri B.R. Rathore, R/o Hardi Bazar, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) (Owner) United India Insurance Company Liraited, Korba, Address R/B Traders First Floor, Station Road, T.P. Nagar; Korba, Tahsil 8s Districf-Korba (C.G.) (Insurer Coinpany) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITION^ . As nientioried in the cause title above. an^i w f<-ii<* ^ff STT^T sh*ii<t> tiiwn 's(i*<i<t» 'TST "lll'i|ld'4, sifll'y'is, fs«niy'j,< R"^^:^-"Mt>l"-^200j 3)1^1 'T^T (•jqI^yT) TOiiw^iftasn^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 20.07.2009 Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrav|1 Heard on admission. The instant petition is d| 08.07.2009, passed by Additiona| Bilaspur, in claim case No. 16/(p8 evidence ofthe claimant/petition^ Shri Agrawal submits that Dr. M.S. Bhatia, Bilaspur, for his disability certificate issued by hi Shri Bhatia and he requested to •*l'<(cf<il'f W^vS ^ ftIA <Fn«ci< i;aiRm sii^l al, Advocate for the petitioner. rected against the order dated Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, i, whereby and whereunder the r has been closed. the petitioner paid the PF to call evidence as he has to prove the TI. Summons were served upon court in writing that he would not be able to attend the court on tt|e date ofevidence i.e. 08.07.09; and therefore, the Tribunal ought|to have issued fresh summons to Doctor, instead of issuing fresjh summons to the Doctor, fhe Tribunal has closed the evideitce of petitioner, thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction. Having heard counsel for ^etitioner, and having perused the record, 1 am ofthe considpred oplinion that the orderpassed bythe Tribunal deserves to be set asW , as the evidence of the petitioner has been closed on the no fau|t of the claimant. The Tribunal ought to have issued fresh su^nmons to call the said Doctor, >u(ni $' i gi?in-Ritra.ri<iiri<'—1-.S/95—11 ,'2008—1,oo,ooo. _ji.^." .-iSa.^!^'*ww~*u^- ^^ ^o •a" *<1*«11 tltliqi 's^ '<iww<i, tSflly'is, fsi<niyy .;«.^•6:^''^ Q&o^0^ s^!\ Tra?T ('jei[3«i<^?) Sf^! qit R;-< W S^V Shlill ^ Sahu ?WKIT ^lto 311^1 trie even the Tribunal should have ist Doctor and instead of doing so the petitioner, therefore, the ord|i aside and quashed. It is directecfl rtotice to call the said Doctor anc) mattershall be decided in is^ued fresh notice against the said Tribunal closed the evidence of d|er passed by the Tribunal is set Ithat the Tribunal shall issue fresh after recording his evidence, the with law. accordbnce With the above stated dire|i order asto costs. However, if grievance then they are at liberty | [ction, the petition is allowed. No respondents herein feel some 1:0 move appropriate application. the <hll(d41"< WI?ff 4 ftlz> •(P<<;|< ^affiiiran^r Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge W(rfti|^*tgi?l|RRr(WriCTT.T—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. -