SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 41

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
Alka Shukla v. Lakhan Lal Sahu
Claim Case No. 86 of 2007



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gautam Khetrapal

The Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for adjournment without considering the valid reasons for non-appearance.

Headnote:Appeal against the order dated 28.3.2008 of the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, which dismissed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment for evidence was held erroneous. The dismissal is overturned and a reasonable opportunity is granted to the claimant to present evidence.

Table of Content
1. tribunal dismissed application due to non-appearance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. tribunal errored in not granting adjournment based on valid reasons. (Para 4)
3. court allows appeal and sets aside the impugned order. (Para 5 , 6)

1. This appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the other side.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 86 of 2007 whereunder upon failure to adduce evidence, Tribunal dismissed the application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Order XVII , R.2 of the Civil Procedure Code .

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 12.2.2008 adjournment was sought by the claimant for adducing evidence. Final opportunity was granted while imposing costs of Rs.300. However on the date fixed for evidence, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, therefore, the case was fixed on 17.3.2008, i.e., the date for further orders, the case was fixed for evidence of the claimant on 28.3.2008. An application for adjournment under Order XVII , R.1 read with S.151, Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the claimant stating that the claimant was ill and was unable to come to court and, therefore, adjournment should be granted. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the prayer and dismissed the application for compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

4. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal erred in refusing adjournment to the claimant for adducing evidence. For the reasons mentioned in the application for adjournment and upon good cause having been shown for non - appearance of the claimant as also her witnesses, the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the application under Order XVII , R.2, Civil Procedure Code .

5. In the result, impugned order dated 28.3.2008 is set aside. The Tribunal shall give a reasonable opportunity to the claimant for adducing evidence. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant - claimant undertakes that the claimant shall adduce evidence on the date fixed by the Tribunal and shall not seek any further adjournment.

6. With this observation, the appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top