1 2025:CGHC:47840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1597 of 2019 Ravi Yadav S/o - Krishna Yadav Aged About 20 Years Profession- Weldor, R/o - Village Akoleedeeh, Khapri, Post Nardaha, Police Station Mandirhasuad, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492101, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Govind Singh Bhediya S/o - Kartik Ram Bhediya Aged About 30 Years Occuption - Owner/driver, R/o - Near Gayatri Mandir, Adivasi Colony Kushalpur, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner/driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.-04-Z.Q. / 5243(, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Future Generaly India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Maruti Business Park, Opposite Rajkumar College, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1604 of 2019 Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Nand Kumar Yadav Aged About 20 Years Profession Welder, R/o Village Akoleedeeh, Khapri, Post Nardaha, P. S. Mandirhasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Govind Singh Bhediya S/o Kartik Ram Bhediya Aged About 30 Years Occupation Owner /driver, R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Adivasi Colony Kushalpur, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh......(Owner/driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. C. G. 04, Z. Q. 5243), Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2 - Future Generly India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Branch Office, Maruti Business Park, Opposite Rajkumar College G. E. Road Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh .........(Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 17/09/2025 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants/claimants have challenged the award passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case Nos. 75/2013 and 74/2013, respectively, dated 25.03.2019, whereby the claim cases filed by the appellants were dismissed, as the claimants/injured persons could not adduce evidence to prove their case. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in both cases, the appellants are cousin. The motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-KB-71853, was being driven by appellant Rakesh Kumar Yadav and appellant Ravi Yadav was pillion rider. He would further submit that on 14.09.2012, a tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-ZQ-5243 dashed the motorcycle of the claimants, as a result they sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, and they remained hospitalized for a 3 considerable period. Thereafter, they filed two separate claim cases on 08.04.2013, which were decided on 25.03.2019. 4. It is contended that due to unavoidable circumstances, the claimants could not adduce their evidence, and the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 25.02.2019, closed their right to lead evidence and dismissed the claim cases. Learned counsel would further submit that an applications were moved before the learned Tribunal seeking one last opportunity to lead evidence, but same were rejected; thus, he prays to set aside the impugned award. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submit that the claimants filed their claim petitions on 08.04.2013, and the award was passed on 25.03.2019. During this long period, the claimants were afforded sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence but they failed, therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim cases. 6. From a perusal of the the order sheets of the learned Tribunal would show that on 05.05.2017, Dr. Sourabh Shrivastava was examined, and thereafter the case was fixed for claimants’ evidence on 27.06.2017. On that date, the claimants again sought time. This practice continued till 25.02.2019. Finally, vide order dated 25.02.2019, the right of the claimants to adduce evidence was closed, and the matter was fixed for final arguments, which culminated in the dismissal of the claim cases vide awards dated 25.03.2019. 7. The learned Tribunal has observed that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the claimants to lead evidence. The claim cases were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimants, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have decided the cases on merits, instead of dismissing the case in 4 want of evidence, particularly when applications were moved by the claimants seeking one last opportunity to adduce evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants were ready to adduce evidence before the learned Tribunal, both these appeals are hereby allowed. Accordingly, the awards passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case Nos. 74/2013 and 75/2013, respectively are hereby set aside. The matters are remitted back to the learned Tribunal. 9. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not afford more opportunities to the claimants to adduce evidence. 10.Parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 28.10.2025. 11.Records be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim