HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W.P. 227) N0. 4570 of 2008 ( PETITIONER R Wahid Khan S/o Shri Sarnir Khan, aged APPLICANT about 37 years, /o Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District—Jjgir—Champa C.G. an At present Magarpra RS. Civil Lain Bilaspur (C.G. Versus 1. Krishanamurti N. S/o Rangarao, Aged NON-PPLICANT about 65 years, R/o Gunadala P.S. 2. G. Ramamohan Rao and company, House No. 60—62 Sidharth Nagar, Vijaybara, District-Krishna (A.P.) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Pos BOX No.-12 KN. Road Tadepligudam 534101, District West Godavari (A.P.) Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Appearance : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, couns for respondent No.3. None for resondents No. 1 86 2. Vijaybara, District- Krishna (A.P.) ORAL ORDER (1 1.09.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Petitioner/Claimant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders dated \ 4.8.2008 85 5.82008 passed in Claim Case N0. 34/2007, by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur,‘ whereby, the Tribunal has closed the rights of the claimant to adduce further evidence and has also closed the rights of respondent No.3 {contesting respondent) to adduce evidence in rebuttal. It appears that on 4.8.2008, the matter was listed for bi~party evidence. On the said date, the prayer was made by the claimant to .give an opportunity to produce Dr. H.S. Chandel in support of his Claim Petition, which the Tribunal refused on the ground that he had~ not taken appropriate steps earlier and then, since the Witness a ) RESPONDENTS A 1 t al el p 2 W.P. 12272 No. 4570 of 2008 W“ on behalf of respondent No.3 were absent it also closed the rights of respondent No.3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has already examined two Witnesses and he only wants to examine Dr. H.S. Chandel and for that a prayer was made which was refused on the ground that the process fee was not paid earlier. He submits that the Motor Vehicle Act being a benevolent legislation, the Tribunal ought not to have taken such View if the claimant failed to pay process fee for attendance of his witness on his personal reason and he prayed for a time for the samé. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the circumstance that the matter was of the year 2007 and the claimant has already examined his two witnesses, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the claimant and it ought to have given an opportunity to produce his witness i.e. Dr. H.S. Chandel. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 4.8.2008 & 5.8.2008 are set aside. It is directed that the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22nd of September, 2009 and on the said date, process fee for summoning Dr. H.S. Chandel shall be filed and notice will be issued to him for a date to be fixed for recording his evidence by the Tribunal. Dasti—Service would also be permitted, if prayed by the petitioner/claimant. The Tribunal shall then give an opportunity to adduce evidence to respondent No.3 and then shall proceed to decide the Claim Petition in accordance with law. a Sunil Kumar Sinha dge vatti Ju a