:C-22 3^1'^T "f^F^n^T 9^4-<ioh ^Ra -^, + ^E[ ^ii^id^, ^Til^^i^, fQi<ni^ll< -Sffi^T 'CRT^ .All;..6:....^.:.3)^_/65 •"W< 200 ^IH^II 9h^l<=h fN-^ST' 'SIT^T ^RTl^R ^rfN about cti|^f<yl<fl"l 'HFT^ff ^ feT:st ^^K '^^rf^TH^TT^T Devkarjan Yadava, S/o Shiv Prasad, aged 8 years, (Labaour), R/o Gram Nara, Post BI|iansoj, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CO) APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Vin^d Goswami, S/o Lalban Qoswaaii, age^l about 24 years, Jeep Driver, R/o Ma]|iamaya Para, Arang, Tahsil and Distt. Rai^ur (CG) 2. Shi^puri Goswami, S/o Pawanpuri Go^wami, aged about 52 years, MaijiaDiaya Para, Arang, Tah. and Distt. Rai^ur (CG) 3. The| National Insurance Co. Ltd. City brajich 1, through Divisional Manager, Divlsional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Roa|d, Raipur (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR ACT, 1988 DB; HO BLE SHRI Dl 5NDBA MISHRA AND SAHEB DBSHSffOKH, JJ HON*BLB SHRI DH.IP 1-12-2008 Shri A.L. Singrol, Adjvocate, for the appellant. This is claimants a^peal against the award dated 15-3- 2002 passed in Claims pase No. 150/2000 wherety, leamed 2nd Additional Motor Ac|sident Claims 'T'ribunal, Raipiu- has dismissed fhe claim petitii claim petition; even th^ during trial. n ofthe claimants on the ground that no evidence was adduce^ by the claimant in support of his claimant dld not examine himself ['^'^fe^r s^ rc-22 ^TT^T^T ^Jch 371^1 ^+iicn ^VQ^ ^' + ^^ ^tl<4ld<LI, ^Ti1<n<o, [®i<ni^y 3^?T,T^ra? .^..^^.^°;...?l3 li>3 '^ 200 ^l^dl 5b^l<^ 'f^^T" 3H^T'^TTWHf^T cni^f<n<i1i TTR^Tf ^ f^st ^^.K >^'3^H3TI^T Leamed counsel for^he appeUmit submits fhat though the claunant did not adduce I^is evidence during trial, however, fhe Tribunal ought to have a^lowed final opportunity of adducing evidence before dismissing) From perusal of paragraph 7, we observe| adjoumments for leading fhe claim petitioner itself on merit fehe impugned award, particularly that the claimaat was allowed 13 evidence, however, when he faMed to adduce any evidence, his e|vidence was closed on 14-3-2002. Considering the abo^e fact, we arc of the opinion that tfae claimant was afforded ai^ple Qpportunity for establishing his claim, however, when he jfailed, the Tribunal was left with no option but to close his evj|dence and since no evidence was led by the claimant in suppoijt of the claim petition, the same has been rightly dismissed by |the CIaims rfaibunal ui fhe absence of aiiy evidence. There is no substan^e in fhis appeaL The same deserves to be dismissed and is hei^by dismissed. Sd/- DffiRENDRA MISHRA Judge .L-——-—"" Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge [Tfr^ ^r^