^ -^' ^-.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1062 of 2004 AppeUaat Shankar Lal Lohia, aged about 70 years, S/o Shri Jawahai' Lal Lohia, R/o Budhapara, behind Dr. Kiikreja's Laae, P.S. Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1, Vijay Kumar Sharma, aged about 39 years, S/o Hari Shaakar Sharma, R/o Jaia Bada, Bijnafhpara, Thaaa KotwaU, Raipur (C.G.). (Driver & owner ofvehicle Tata Sum.o N6. CG 04-4511) 2. Urdted India Insurance Co. Ltd., fhrough Divisional OflEice, Krishna Coinplex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). (Insurcr ofVehicle Tata SUDIO No, C.G. 04-4511) DB: Honl3le Shri Justice S. R. Nayak, C.J. & Hon'ble ShriJustice Satish K. Agmhotri, J, Mr. Sachm Singh Rajput, Advocate for fhe appeUaat, Mr. S. K, Dadsena, Advocate for fhe Respondent No,l. Mr. Dashrafh Gupta, Advocate for fhe Respondent No.2. ORALORDER "S-. F ( 29th November 2005) The appeUaat hereia, claimiag fhat he sustaiaed certain personal injunes ia a miotor vehicle accident occurrcd on 13.10.2001, fiiled a claim petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short <fhe Acf) beforc fhe Motor Accident Claimis Tribunal on 10th April, 2002. Aftw^notice to fhe respondents aiid they put ui appearaace, as could be seen froni fhe order sheets maintabied by the Tribunal, fhe case was adjouraed from time to time, as mauy as 25 tiaies. The order sheet also discloses fhat fhe case was posted on 11 different occasions exclusively for adduciag evidence by fhe claiinaat. The clamiaat did not choose to addiice evidence notwithstandiag Uberal adjourainents granted by fhe M.A.C.T. froin time to tfcoie. In the circuiastaace, fhe M.A.C.T. closed fhe evidence offhe appeUant/claimaat on 13.4.2004, -^- ^ ^, \^ We have perused fhe origiaal records of the case. The case was posted on nuiaber of occasions exclusiyely for adduction of evidence by fhe clamiaat as inaiiy as on 11 occasions. The claiiaaat did not choose to addiice any evidence. Therefore, it coiUd not be said fhat fhie M.A.C.T. was not justfc&ed ia closiag the evidence of fhe claimant by its order dated 11.3.2004 and dismissed fhe claioi petition for want of legal evidence ia support of fhe claim, It xnay be noticed fhat even fhe order dated 13.4.2004 rcjecting appUcation of fhe appeUant to adduce evidence is also not chaUenged by fhe appeUaat. However, it was stated before zis by leamed couasel Shri Sachin Siagh Rajput that fhe appeUaat/claimarit was bedndden and he was not in. a position to laove aboiit and ftierefore, he could not appear before the^Tnbunal to addiice evidence. The subinission niade by learaed coiinsel is not conviaciag to us. If fhe appellan-t was not weU and he was bedridden, he could have prayed fhe Tribunal to record his evidence by appointiag Commissioner or he could have aufhorized someone to give evidence on his behalf beforc fhe Tribiinal. In fhe facts aiid circumstances offhe case, we arc not persuaded to fhink that fhe Tribunal has exercised fhe discretion vested ia it arbitrarily or iinreasonably. Law helps diligent aad not indolent,. Though, ample opportunities were given to fhe appeUant to prove his case, he could not niake use of fhe opportunities and siich a niaa is not entifled to contend before fhis Court that he was denied opportunity to adduce evidence. Looking froia any aagle, we caanot talce any exception to fhe inipugned award. In fhe circuxastaace, we disiaiss fhe appeal. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^ Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHO'FM Judge