HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon' ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ M.A. (C)^o. 720 of 2008. — APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Mus. Sheela Devi Dubey, aged about 26 years, wife of late Santosh Kumar Dubey. 2. Anurag Dubey, aged about 4 years, son of late Santosh Kumar Dubey (Minor). 3. Ku. Amrita Dubey, aged about 2 years, daughter of late Santosh Kumar Dubey (Minor). 4. Harishankar Dubey, aged about 50 years, son of Late Shri Ram Sagar Dubey. 5. Shanti Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Shri Harishankar Dubey. Minors (appellants No. 2 and 3) through their natural guardian i.e., Appellant No.1 (Mus. Sheela Devi Dubey, aged about 26 years, widow of late Santosh Kumar Dubey). All are r/o. Viilage Madupur, PO Kundsher, Distt. Gajipur (UP), presently resident of = C/o. S.C. Pandey, New Sarkanda Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Respondents Driver OWNER INSURER Vs. 1. Kumbha Bhai Bhawan bhai Gohil, aged about 36 years, resident of Kidiya Nagar, Taluka (Tah.), Rahpar, Distt. Kochch (Gujrat). 2. Madhu Bhai Ambalal Patel, r/o. Gandhidharm, Distt. Kachch (Gujrat). 3. The Divisiona! Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Resham Bhawan 6 Floor, 78 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai (Maharastra), through the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, e Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). (Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1988). Present: Shri N.P. Chandravanshi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.3 Oral Order (Passedon 5-2-2010) PerT.P.Sharma,J. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act, 1988"), the appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned award dated 23-6-2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") Bilaspur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.2/2005, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not adduced necessary evidence in support oftheir claim petition. 2) Brief facts for necessary disposal of this appeal arethat on account of the death of Santosh Kumar Dubey in a motor accident on 25-10- 2004, legal representatives of deceased Santosh Kumar Dubey have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Notices were served on the respondents, the opposite party have filed their written statements and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence on first time on 24-3-2007. On that day, witnesses were not present and the case was adjourned to 27-4-2007. On 27-4-2007, an application for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat was filed by the applicant and the case was fixed for compromise on 6-5-2007 before the Lok Adalat and the evidence of the ^'^ applicant was closed. On 6-5-2007, the case was taken up by Lok Adalat, but the case was not compromised and the case was again posted for evidence of non-applicants on 21/6/2007. On 21-6-2007 non- applicants were absent and in their absence, the evidence of non- applicant No.3 was closed and the case was posted for arguments on 23-6-2007 and on that day the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the applicants and the non-applicants failed to adduce any evidence. 3) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award ofthe Tribunal. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argues that although the applicants/appellants were under obligation to adduce proper evidence to prove their case, but the Tribunal has not provided reasonable and proper opportunity of adducing the evidence and only one day time was given to the appellants for adducing evidence . In the hope of compromise, the appellants have filed an application for placing this matter before Lok Adalat and the case was taken up by Lok Adalat where attempts of the appellants were failed but no opportunity of adducing the evidence was given to the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that this Is a case of award of compensation on account of death of Santosh Kumar Dubey and the Tribunal ought to have afforded proper and reasonable opportunity to the applicants to adduce their evidence.. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that reasonable and proper opportunity for adducing M^. ^^ '%, .^ij^. i ^^:-SB^ evidence has been given to the appellants by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants 6) From perusal of the impugned award of the Tribunal, it reveals that only one opportunity for adducing evidence was given to the appellants and while placing the matter before the Lok Adalat, opportunity of adducing evidence of the appellants bas been closed by the Tribunal. — The order sheets of the Tribunal reveal that reasonable opportunity has not been provided to the parties for adducing their evidence in order to prove their case. 7) Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned award is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 23-6-2007 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to provide reasonable and proper opportunity for adducing evidence to the parties and thereafter decide the claim petition afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to present before the Claims Tribunal on 15-3-2010. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju