[2025:RJ-JP:12695] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1857/2013 Kamla Devi W/o Chetram, aged 47 years, Resident of Mewali, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Ramkishore son of Thakariya, resident of patliya, Police Station Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar (Driver). 2. Puran Singh son of Hanuman singh, resident of Majri Bhanda, (Owner). Thana & Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar 3. United India Insurance Company Limited having its regional office at Vishal Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Regional manager. ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, Adv. (for the respondent No.3) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/03/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) challenging the order dated 16.04.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.209/2008 whereby learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimant- appellant, on the ground that the claimant-appellant failed to produce any evidence in her favour. [2025:RJ-JP:12695] (2 of 4) [CMA-1857/2013] 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant- appellant submitted that the no proper opportunity to lead her evidence was granted to the claimant-appellant and after closing her evidence, the claim petition was decided in a hasty manner, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to learned Tribunal and the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal be set aside and the claimant-appellant be granted one last opportunity to lead evidence in her favour. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that after granting sufficient opportunity to the claimant-appellant, she failed to produce any evidence before learned Tribunal, therefore, after closing the evidence of the claimant-appellant, learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment in a justified manner and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. After perusing the record, it is revealed that in the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimant-appellant, the issues were framed on 12.01.2011 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the claimant-appellant for 02.03.2011. On 02.03.2011, there was holiday, therefore the file was taken up on 03.03.2011 and then, the matter was fixed for the evidence of the claimant-appellant for 13.04.2011. On 13.04.2011, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the matter was fixed for 08.06.2011. On 08.06.2011, the Presiding Officer was again on leave and then, the matter was fixed for 17.08.2011. On 17.08.2011, the work was suspended by the Bar. Therefore, the matter was fixed for 12.10.2011 for the [2025:RJ-JP:12695] (3 of 4) [CMA-1857/2013] evidence of the non-applicant without closing the evidence of the claimant-appellant. Then the matter was fixed for 07.12.2011 for the evidence of non-applicant. On 03.02.2012, the ordersheet was corrected and the matter was again fixed for the evidence of claimant-appellant for 16.03.2012. On 16.03.2012, for the first time, the claimant-appellant sought an adjournment and the claimant-appellant was granted last opportunity to produce her evidence at the cost of Rs.2,000/-. On the next date i.e. 06.04.2012, the evidence of the claimant was closed. As defendants refused to submit any evidence, therefore, after hearing the final arguments, the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimant-appellant was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.04.2012 for want of the evidence. 6. The discussions made herein-above makes it clear that no proper opportunity was granted to the claimant to lead her evidence before learned Tribunal, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2012 passed by learned Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant. 7. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar in MAC Case No.209/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside with the direction that learned Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity to the claimant-appellant to lead evidence in her favour. As the matter is an old one, therefore, both the parties are directed to appear before learned Tribunal on 21.04.2025. It is also made clear that [2025:RJ-JP:12695] (4 of 4) [CMA-1857/2013] the claimant-appellant shall lead all the evidences in her favour, which she desires to lead, within a period of two months from 21.04.2025 and no further opportunity shall be granted to her for leading her evidence. Thereafter, learned Tribunal will proceed as per law after giving opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. 8. Record be sent back immediately to the learned Tribunal. 9. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed. Stay application and other pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /02