HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) No. 2981 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Through - Divisional Manager, Opposite High Court, Tehsil & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Kaushal Singh S/o Shoban Singh, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village- Basha, P.S. Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Manoj Das @ Vinod Das S/o Bishun Das Mahant, R/o Limha, P.S. Ratanpur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) 3. Kaushal Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Soni, R/o Village & Post - Beltara, P.S. Ratanpur, Dist., Bilaspur (Owner) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 & 3. ORDER (07.07.2009) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Heard. (2) Being aggrieved with theorders dated 3.5.2007 & 5.5.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 59/2007 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, petitioner/lnsurance Company has filed this petition. ^ F W.P.fC'lNo. 2981 of 2007 (3) A perusal of the impugned orders would show that in the said claim case, on 3.5.2007, the Insurance Company filed an application for seeking time to produce its evidence on the ground that the Officer who had to appear for evidence had gone out of station for some personal reason. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the said application and fixed the case for final hearing on 5.5.2007 closing the right of evidence of the petitioner. On 5.5.2007, the witness was present. The Insurance Company prayed for taking evidence of the witness before hearing the arguments but the said prayer was also rejected. (4) Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/lnsurance Company, argued that the matter was fixed for the first time for non-applicant evidence on 3.5.2007; the adjournment was sought on genuine ground; therefore refusal of the same was unjustified. He also argued that on subsequent date i.e. 5.5.2007 when the witness was present, the Tribunal ought to have taken his evidence in the ends of justice. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Gautam Khetrapa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, opposed these arguments and supported the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal. (6) On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Tribunal took too technical view, firstly by refusing adjournment when the matter was fixed for the evidence of the non-applicant/petitioner for the first time and secondly, even if the witness was present on the subsequent date it refused to examine him. .Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent legislation. By way of Rules \^. . W.P.CONo. 298lof2007 framed for prosecution of the claim cases, certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to such proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal, ought to have granted time to the petitioner to adduce theirevidence with a view to achieve the goal of the legislation as also to extend complete justice to the parties. The legal and genuine rights of the parties cannot be defeated on technicalities. (7) For the foregoing reason, the impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that the Tribunal shall award an opportunity to the petitioner/tnsurance Company to adduce their evidence on a date to be fixed by it. The parties are directed to make their appearance before the Tribunal on 3 of August, 2009. If any earlier date is already fixed, they shall appear on the said date. (8) Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vattl