@ $m$w aw‘m Writ Petition NO$Q§€7OF 2004. VER§US £331$P$NE§ENTS A E ; (Driver) DJ Q (insurance) Harish Kumar Avdliiya S/o Shri Hajarilal Avdhiya, aged about 37 Years? Resident of Street No.1, Near Hanmnan Maiidir, Idgah bhata- Raipur, Thana—Ajad Chowk, Raipur, Tahsii and DistRaipur (C.G.)(Maruti Zen No. MP=23LA= 2860) Masers Neha Shoos Through Director shri Diiip Kumar Gangawani S/o Shri Not known R/o GaneshRam Nagan Raipur, Thana- city kotwaii, Raipur,\tahsil and Dist. Rajpur (C.G.) (Maruti Zen No. N - 23LA—2860) National Insurance Company Limited cities B. R1, 1 Naveen Bajar G.E.Road Raipur, tehsii and Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ‘NRE’E E’ETEEEGN ENBER A§TICLE 227 {E‘F EEE GUNSTITUTEGN OF ENEEA. z/ Abdul Ajeein S/o shii Abdul Rahiin Beg aged about 4O Years, R/o Near Udiya Boring, Bhind ten Na}, Santeshi Nagar, Raipur, Thaila- Tikrapara, tahsii & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) EN EEE HEGE €8URT @F €§E§AFE£SGARE AT BELAS?UR 7 C Ab HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri S.L. Chandra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3 ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 06.0 l .20 1 1) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, though the matter was listed for orders on application for urgent hearing, the matter is heard fina‘xly. . This petition is directed against order dated 18.8.2004 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, by which the application for adjournment has been rejected, right to lead defence closed and the claim petition has been dismissed. .The petitioner filed a claim case before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on account of alleged permanent disablement due to accident by a motor vehicle on 29.1.2001. On 17.7.2004, the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that the petitioner wanted to place on record the medical certificate W.P. No. 4907/2004 PETITIONER Abdul Ajeem Versus RESPONDENTS Harish Kumar Avdhiya & Ors. ZN and the treating doctor was not available. Thereafter, on 18.8.2004, the petitioner made another application for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is out of station and therefore, he prayed for one adjournment for examination of his witnesses. Vide impugned order, the learned Claims Tribunal rejected the application and dismissed the claim petition. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come before this Court in this petition. . Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though just and proper cause for adjournment on sufficient grounds was made out seeking adjournment, the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the application Without due and proper consideration of the grounds for adjournment, on extraneous considerations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that it was a case of claim arising out of an accident and in the absence of there being any material to show that the petitioner was delaying the trial and that grounds was not at all bonafide, rejection of application and dismissal of claim case is illegal and resulted in serious hardship. . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 85 2 (Driver 8L Owner) and learned counsel for respondent No.3 (insurance Comp.) have supported the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant/petitioner prayed for adjournment on the ground of absence of arguing counsel and the Claims Tribunal, 4 considering that earlier also, the application for absence was rejected, rightly passed the order as the petitioner was not entitled to any uch adjournment on such grounds. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Claims Tribunal. . The petitioner in his application as well as in application before the Claims Tribunal stated that the senior counsel is not available and is ot of station and that e witnesses of the petitioner are also not present. The learned Claims Tribunal seems to have been swayed by the fact that earlier the application was rejected and in spite of time granted, the witnesses are not present. Considering that the petitioner had moved a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, in the oinion of this Cort, the impugned order is I ilgal and not sutainable in law and therefore, the same is set aside. .The petitioner shall b allowed to lead the evidence and the Claims‘l‘ribunal shal decide the cl petition expeditiously. 1 9. Petition is accordingly‘allowed. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs. _‘ Praveen b s . u th p u le s e l aim