FAO No. 1388 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1388 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2010 Netrapal .... Appellant vs Nisar and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 2- Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby due to non-production of evidence in support of his claim, the claim petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is about 52 years of age, met with an accident on 1.2.2009 in which he suffered multiple injuries on his person. On treatment, the appellant spent more than Rs. One lac and is still taking treatment. He had filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 20.2.2009 claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. Written statement was filed by respondent no. 1 on 5.6.2009 and thereafter the case was fixed for 11.9.2009 for evidence of the appellant. On 11.9.2009, the appellant could not lead evidence due to non- availability of certain documents and the case was adjourned to 30.10.2009. As the appellant is not keeping good health, he could not procure the said documents and the case was adjourned to 11.12.2009. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.1.2010, on which date by passing the the impugned order, the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the appellant has suffered grievous injuries FAO No. 1388 of 2010 -2- in the said accident, his appeal be considered as mercy petition and he be granted opportunity to conclude his evidence in support of his claim. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the appellant to conclude his evidence but his aim is only to delay the proceedings. The order of the learned court below closing the evidence of the appellant and dismissing his claim petition is perfectly right as numerous opportunities were availed of by him to adduce evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the parties are borne out from the record. No doubt, it is the duty of the appellant to lead evidence in support of his claim. But at the same time, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the appellant is a poor person, who allegedly suffered injuries in an accident. Moreover, by delaying the matter, he would have not gained anything rather he will suffer loss as he may not have been able to get proper treatment because of lack of funds. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.1.2010 is set aside and the claim petition is directed to be restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5.6.2010. The Tribunal will grant opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence, who shall now conclude the same upto 31.8.2010. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 4.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge