Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010067772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/133/2025 SMTI BANTI GOGOI BARUA AND 3 ORS. WIFE OF LATE GOKUL BORUAH, R/O VILL- NO. 1 KARUNABARI, P.O. AND P.S.-LAALUK, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001 2: MISS DAMINEE BORUAH DAUGHTER OF LATE GOKUL BORUAH R/O VILL- NO. 1 KARUNABARI P.O. AND P.S.-LAALUK DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO. 1) 3: MISS DIYA BORUAH DAUGHTER OF LATE GOKUL BORUAH R/O VILL- NO. 1 KARUNABARI P.O. AND P.S.-LAALUK DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO. 1) 4: BOIKUNTHA BARUA @ BAIKUNTHA BORUAH R/O VILL- NO. 1 KARUNABARI P.O. AND P.S.-LAALUK DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GUWAHATI BRANCH AND 2 ORS. DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2:PINAK PRATIM NEOG Page No.# 2/4 SON OF DEEPAK NEOG RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARMOTI MERBIL (8/11 ANISHBARI) P.O.- MERBIL P.S.- LALUK DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:DEEPAK NEOG S/O LT MANIK NEOG RESIDENT OF (8/11 ANISHBARI) P.O.- MERBIL P.S.- LALUK DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. A K DAS,MS A ROY,MR. S SAHU Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 08.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.03.2025, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, in MACT (Death) Case No. 13/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 10.03.2025, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’, for short), Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur had refused to grant adjournment to the petitioners and thereafter, rejected the petition No. 129/25, filed by the petitioners and thereafter, closed the petitioners/claimants’ evidence and fixed the matter for evidence-in-affidavit of the D.W.s. Page No.# 3/4 4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had instituted a claim petition, being MACT (Death) Case No. 13/2024, before the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur and the said case was fixed on 10.03.2025, for evidence of the claimants’ side. Mr. Sahu also submits that the petitioners had already availed four adjournments and on 10.03.2025, the petitioners filed a petition for granting them time to file evidence-in-affidavit, but on account of absence of their counsel, they could not file the evidence-in-affidavit. Mr. Sahu further submits that the petitioners may be granted one last opportunity to adduce their evidence, otherwise serious prejudice would be caused to them, and therefore, Mr. Sahu has contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 10.03.2025. 6. It appears that the petitioners had already availed four adjournments on 30.09.2024, 11.11.2024, 06.12.2024 and 27.01.2025, and thereafter on 10.03.2025, again they filed one petition on the ground that their counsel, namely, Mr. Nitul Ray left for Kolkata for some urgent work. 7. Since the petitioners have failed to examine a single witness in support of their claim and since on the date fixed i.e. 10.03.2025, they could not file evidence-in-affidavit on account of absence of their conducting counsel, this Court is of the view that one last opportunity has to be afforded to the petitioners to adduce their evidence. 8. It is to be noted here that fair trial is the right of the parties and in fair trial, fair opportunity is required to be given to both the parties. Page No.# 4/4 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, stands set aside and quashed. 10. The learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur is directed to afford one last opportunity to adduce their evidence. However, the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, being the cost before the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, before next date fixed. 11. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant