iaEBa8>». .«E|. il 3 H1GHCQURTOF CHHATTISGARH_ArBtLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. ,ig.)!(SS Ciaimant Miscellaneous Appeal No.279 of 2003 •9 Chinta Ram Sahu, S/o Sunhar Ram Sahu, aged about 61 years, R/o Vilfage Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. ResBoiidents Non-Claimants yersus Rajendra Kumar, S/o Sadashiv Dheemar, aged about 30 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg, C.G. (Driver) G.S.Thakur, S/o J.S.Thakur, R/b H.F.5, Buitdings, New Civil Line, Durg, Distt. Durg, C.G. (Ownsr) New Oriental Insurance Co. Limited. P.B.No.51, Maiviya Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg, C.G. (Insurance Company) hl Jtt Appeal ynder Section 173 of the MotQiLVehic|esAct,^)988 Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 4ih of March, 2008) This appeal is being disposed offinally at the stage of admission. (2) Heard. (3) The appeltant/claimant is aggrieved by the order dated 26-02- 2003, whereby the ilnd Additional Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, Durg (henceforth 'the MACT') has dismissed the application for c'ompensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (hsnceforth 'tfwAct') onthe ground of non-production ofevidence. _ !f: -'^ -2- ,,itlli^"a!ii< (4) A perusa! of ttie record shows that on 26-02-2003 when the impugned order was passed, the matter was not fixed for recording evidence, but for filing documents. The MACT was, thus, not justified in dismissing the appllcation for compensation for non-production of evidence. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26-02- 2003, dismissing the appiication for compensation for non-production of evidenee on 26-02-2003, is bad in law. (5) Shri Vishnu Koshta, iearned counsel appearing for the appeliant/ciaimant prayed that one opportunity be granted to the appellantfctaimant to adduce evidence. (6) Theappealisailowed. The impugned order dated 26-02-2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the MACT with a direction to give one more opportunity to the appellant/claimant for adducing evidence. The appellantfclaimant shall appear before the MACT on 22" April, 2008. Thereafter, one opportunity and no further shall be granted to the appellant/claimant to adduce evidence. (7) Record of the IVIACT be returned forthwith witti a copy of this Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ;cpa!