JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 11.3.1999 passed by learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 12 of 1996 by which the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant had filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for death of his wife Foolmati in an accident which took place on 25.1.1996. The case was fixed on 11.3.1999 for recording the evidence of the parties. The counsel for the appellant requested the Tribunal to adjourn the case on the ground of sickness of the appellant-claimant. The prayer was rejected on the ground that the counsel has not supported his prayer for adjournment by any evidence, consequently petition for compensation was dismissed.

(3.) On perusal of the record I find that the Tribunal has acted with undue haste. On 11.3.1999 for the first time the case was fixed for recording of the evidence. Appellant's counsel requested the court to adjourn the case because of inability of the appellant to lead his evidence due to his sickness. However, the prayer was refused. The approach of the learned Tribunal is not just. It has ignored that the petition was filed seeking compensation for the death and it was the first date fixed for evidence. The adjournment was sought because of sickness of the appellant-claimant and in such circumstances the harsh step of rejection of prayer and dismissal of claim petition was wholly unjustified. The Claims Tribunal ought to have given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in support of his claim petition, instead of this the claim petition was dismissed. It was not a case where the claimant was unnecessarily lingering on aside. The appeal is allowed. The case is the case warranting rejection of prayer for remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal adjournment and dismissal of the petition, to decide the same in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. In this view of the matter the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set Appeal allowed.