IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {xvmga [8mm M.A. No.‘QM /2005 (1)3.) (Appeal U/s 173 M.V. Act. 1988 Valued at Rs. 17,55,000/—) APPELLANTS / 1. Smt. Rani Thakur Wd/o Late Bas‘ant Thakur, CLAIMANTS Age— 22 years. /2. Smt. Urv'arshi Thakur W/o Ramswarup Thakur, Age- 50 years. Tarun Thakur S/o Late Basant Thakur Aged 1/ about 4 years (Minor) Through : Mother. AV ...... VT’X‘WA; Kmnari Rjtu Thakur D/o Late Basant § e f. ...... "av-y” Thakur, Age 2 years (Minor) .. ‘ h’i ew' " ...... d Both applicant No. 3 & 4 minor Through : Q§ \ Mother Applicant No.1, Smt. Rani Thakur A11 Resident of C/o Vijay Thakur, Shivaji Chowk, Masjid ke Aage, Santoshi Nagar, Tikarapara, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS ¥1§ON—APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS 19 Narayan Sant Kumar Gilhare, Gilhare, Age- S/o 23 years, Shri Shesh R/.o. Devpuri, Near Jaitkhambh Mandlr, P.S. Tikarapara, Tah. 1& Distt. Raipu (C.G.). (Driver of offending Vehicle). Chandalram Mandhani, R/o C/o. M.S. Lal Medicine Centre, Shop No.8, Devpuri, P.S. Tikarapara, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of offending vehicle) 3. The New India Assurance Company / Ltd., Divisional Office, First Floor, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.) Certificate No. 450300/31/03/01374, Valid for 17.09.2003 to 16.09.2004 (insurer). APPEAL U/s 1‘7’3Mv ACT 1988 VALUED AT Rs. wigs00w- g r - “imam, m, W an%§{ m m€§$ 3th DIVISION BENCH: - HON’BLE SHRI A.K. PATNA‘IK, c C— & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHGTRI J. ..._.:_ 10I05I2005: ' M.A.No.271 ofzoos Heard Mr. Yashwant Tiwa‘Ii learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate With Mr. V. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though notices have'been served by registered pos on respondents 1 &H2, the_s’aid‘respondents 1 & 2 have not appeared. This is an appeal against the order dated 06.01 .2005 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Ralpur (C.G.) dismissing the Claim Case No.40 of 2004 tiled by the appellants. The aforesaid Claim Case was fixed for evidence on 06.01.2005 ‘ and the appellant No.1 did not ap r‘ before the Tribunal on the said date and had filed an adjournment appli ation stating therein that she had been operated for appendicectomy and he was bed ridden. The application for adjournment was supported by a edical certitiéate. The said application for adjournment was'however rejec ed by the Tribunal and the Claim Case of the appellants was dismissed by he impugned order/ award. Having considered the sub issions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the application for adjournment has been filed by ppellant No.1 on the ground of an operation having been suffered b ‘her and on the ground that she'was ‘ bed ridden on the date on Which the case was posted for. hearing, the I [ataéfeit t p a xx-Hcaz m m a 296? may ma: W arm3W x1fé:% mmm am -a- wwwfifwm é: SAW 3W Tribunal should have grantedadjownment in the matter particularly: when l a medical certificatie ”had been filed in Support of the'application for x l a adjournment. l We accordingly, set asid 'the impugned order i award dated 06.01.2005 passed by Third Add tienal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.4 of 2004 and remand the matter back to the aforesaid Tribunal for fresh a rd in accordance with lawrafter giving all due opportunity to the par-tie . The Tribunal willfrrst consider the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 said to have been filed by the appellants. Sd/— ~ . l Sd/— l 1 Satish K. Agnihotl‘i x Chief Justice a Judge \ T” J ‘/ 6’; ‘ [wire %’l@‘?'i