<^ HiGHCOURTOICHHATTISGARHATB^^^ Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri DJJJD Raosaheb Deshmukh.J. ^ ^ x^ Appellant Respondents M.A.fCl.No.865/2008 Smt. Alka Shukla, W/o Shri Rajkumar Shukla, aged about 35 years, Through : Next friend/General Power of Attorney Rajkumar Shukla, s/o Shri Gopikishan, aged about 42 years, r/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Main Road, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Lakhan Lal Sahu, S/p Dasrath Prasad Sahu, R/o. Village Nagaoi, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicte Tractor No.C.G.- 10/A/3227 and Troltey No. C.G.-10/A/3228) 2. Gajanand Prasad Pandey, S/o Shri Devdutta Pandey, R/o Village and Post Belsan. Tahsjt and P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur(C.G^ (Owner of Vehide j Tractor No.C.G.- 10/A/3227 and Trolley ISIo. C.G .-10/A/3228) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Limtted, Through : Divisional Manager, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Tahsil & District Bjlaspur APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present Appellant by Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. ORAL ORDER (Passedonl 1.07.2008) This appeal is being disposed of atthe admission stage without notice tothe other side. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the 1st Additional MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claims Case No. 86/2007 whereunder upon failure to adduce evidence, the Tribunal -^-"2-" 4. s""' dismissed the application under SectJon 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Grder 17 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. 3. A perusal of the impugned order showsthat on 12.02.2(X)8 adjournment was sought by the claimant for adducing eyidence. Final opportunity was grantedwhile imposing cost of Rs.300/-. However, on the date fixed for evidence, the Presiding Officer was on leave, and therefore, the casewas fixed on 17.3.2008. On 17.03.2008 i.e.the date for further orders. the case was fixed for evidence of the claimant on 28.03.2008. An appljcation for adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Seetion 151 C.P.C. was filed on behalf of the claimant stating that the claimant was ill and was unabteto come to Court, and therefore, adjoumment should be granted. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the prayer and dismissed the application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal erred in refusing acyoumment to the claimant for adducing evidence. For the reasons mentioneci in the application for adjoumment and upon good cause having been shown for non-appearance of the daimant as also her witnesses, the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissingthe application under Order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. 5. In the result, the impugned order dated 28.03.2008 is set aside. The Tribunal shall give a reasonable opportunity to the claimant for adducing evidence. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, leamed counsel for the appellant/claimant undertakes that the claimarit shall adduce evidenGe on the date fixed by ttie Tribunal and shallnptseekanyfurther adjournment. 6. With this observation, the appeal is allowed. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Anjani