A-P!^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DSViSiON BENCK RESPONDENTS NQN-APPl.lCANTS Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi T.P. SHARMA, J. M.A. No. 360/2004 Sushil Agrawal, S/o Sri Satyanarayan Agrawal, Aged about 23 years Occupation - Contractor of Transporting At FCI & Own Business, R/o Fafadih, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Dinesh Gouri S/o Roshan lal Gouri Aged about 20 years Occupation Tata Sumo Driver, R/o Gali No.1, Fafadim, Distt Raipur CG 2. DhanLaxmi Naidu D/o Shivkashi Niadu, Aaed about 20 years, Occupation - Owner of Tata Sumo, R/o Station Chowk, Raipur, Distt - Raipur CG 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bajrang Market, Raipur CG Through Divisional Manager, Divisiona! Office - Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur CG MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1888 Present: Shri A.L. Singraut, tearned counsei for the appellant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawai, learned Senior Counsei with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (6th March, 2009) 7 w The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,G.J.: Appeilant-claimant Sushil Agrawal has filed this appeal against the impugned award dated 17.12.2003, passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.150/2002, whereby the clalm petition was dismissed. 2). Appellant - ciaimant Sushil Agrawal filed a clalmpetition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grantof compensation to the tune of Rs.42,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.02.2002. The ctaim petition was filed on 06.10.2002. The Claims Tribunal finding that the claimant did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim, passed the impugned award dated 17.12.2003, whereby the claim petition was dismissed. 3). Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appellant's claim petition in undue haste. 4). Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 - New India tnsurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as theclaimant did not lead any evidence in support of his claim, the Tribunal was ieft with no other option but to dismiss the claim petition. 5). Appellant - claimant Sushil Agrawal filed the claim petition on 06.10.2002. The Tribunal framed the issues on 28.07.2003 and thereafter the case was fixed for recording evidence on 7 08.08.2003. The claimant sought adjournment on 08.08.2003 on the ground that his witness was suffering from fever. The case was adjourned to 25.08.2003 for recording the evidence of the claimant's witnesses. On 25.08.2003, again the claimant and his witnesses did not appear. The Tribunal thought it proper to grant one more opportunity to the claimant for examining his witnesses. The case, therefore, was adjourned to 10.09.2003. On 10.09.2003 also no witness was examined by the claimant. The case was then adjourned to 25.09.2003. On this date again, the claimant's witnesses were not present, but the Tribunal taking a lenient view in the matter granted one more opportunity at the cost of Rs.500/- and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the daimant's witnesses on 10.10.2003. On 10.10.2003, an application was submitted on behalfofthe Insurance Company for dismissing the claim petition, as the claimant could not examine any witness in support of his claim. The ciaimant's counsel, however, sought further time for examination of the witnesses. The case was then adjourned to 24.10.2003. On 24.10.2003, an app!ication was submitted by the claimant for grant of permission to withdraw the ciaim petition with the liberty of filing another claim petition or in the alternative for grant of two months' time for examining the witnesses. The case then was adjourned to 31.10.2003 for orders on this application. On 31.10.2003, the Presiding Ofilcer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 03.11.2003. On 03.11.2003, the case was adjourned to 22.11.2003. On 22.11.2003, the case was again adjourned to / If'.l '«^«< (S> 29.11.2003. On 29.11.2003, the case was adioumed to 03.12.2003 and then on 15.12.2003. On 15.12.2003, final arguments of the parties were heard by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunaf passed the impugned award on 17.12.2003. 6). From the above mentioned sequence of events, it is apparent that the appellant/ claimanl, in spite of grant of several opportunities after framing of theissues by the Tribunal, could not examine any wftness in support of his ctaim. Even thectaimant did not examine himself before the Tribunal. ; 7). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the submission of leamed counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not grant suffteient opportunity to the appeltant/ claimant and has dismissed the claim petition in undue haste. We are satisfied that the Tribunal, in fact, has granted more than sufffcient opportunity to the appellant/ claimant to lead evidence in support of his claim. As the appellant/ claimant miserably failed in adducing the evidence before the Tribunal ih support of his claim, the Tribunal was teft with no other option but to dismiss the claim petition. 8). We, therefore,do not find any infirmHy in the approach and award of the Tribunal whereby the appellant's claim petition was dismissed. 9). The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10). No order as to crets. 7 sa/- Chief Justtce Sd/- T.P. Sharma ie