[2025:RJ-JP:16853] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4900/2009 Vikram Singh Yadav S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, aged 49 years, R/o Village Lodhadi, Police Station Sadar, Alwar District Alwar, at present Sub Inspector, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Dharm Singh S/o Shri Rajpal, R/o Saroli, P.S. Bajirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, At present R/o Suman Photo Studio, Saloda Mod, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its General Manager, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Registered Owner of Roadways Bus No. RJ-14-1P-3117). ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Smt. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment & award dated 25.08.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur in claim petition No.150/2009 (1149/2007) whereby the claim petition was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this appeal is preferred on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident while traveling in bus of respondent No.2- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'RSRTC'). The claim petition was filed on 12.07.2007 and in the claim petition, after service of [2025:RJ-JP:16853] (2 of 4) [CMA-4900/2009] respondents, respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 RSRTC filed its response on 29.03.2008, thereafter, on 08.07.2008 learned court below framed issues in the matter and later on the case was transferred. 3. That the evidence of the appellant was closed on 17.08.2009 and the claim petition was finally dismissed on 25.08.2009 for want of evidence. 4. A bare perusal of the order-sheets of the court below indicates that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to prove his case and thereafter, within a span of 8 days, the evidence of the appellant was closed and the matter was finally dismissed for want of evidence. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that no proper opportunity was granted to the appellant to lead the evidence and in a very short span of time the evidence was closed and the matter was finally decided. She contended that the appellant sustained injuries on account of accident while traveling in a bus of RSRTC. She further contended that in the interest of justice, appellant should be granted one more opportunity to lead evidence and while setting aside the impugned award the matter may also be remitted back to the learned trial Court for deciding the same on merits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 RSRTC contended that sufficient opportunities were granted to the appellant for leading evidence and when the evidence was not led within the stipulated time granted by learned trial Court, the learned trial Court rightly closed the evidence. It is also contended that the contents of the claim petition were not proved by the [2025:RJ-JP:16853] (3 of 4) [CMA-4900/2009] appellant, therefore, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is just and does not call for any interference. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A bare perusal of the order-sheets of the case reveals that only two effective opportunities were granted to the appellant to prove the averments of the claim petition, and the claim petition has been decided in a hot haste manner. 9. The law is well-settled that while deciding the claim cases, learned trial Court should have taken a pragmatic approach by granting sufficient opportunity to prove the contents of the claim petition, and in the present matter, only two effective opportunities were granted to the appellant and thereafter, within a short span of time evidence of the appellant was closed on 17.08.2009, the claim petition was dismissed on merits without considering the fact that the claim petition is arising out of accident and filed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a welfare legislature. Thus, the learned trial Court committed a serious illegality in not granting adequate opportunity to lead evidence and dismissal of the case within a span of 8 days cannot be said to be just and proper. 10. In these circumstances, the practice and procedure adopted by learned MACT cannot be termed to be just, further the impugned order dismissing the claim petition cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Tribunal to decide the case afresh while granting the appellant as well as to [2025:RJ-JP:16853] (4 of 4) [CMA-4900/2009] the respondents to lead the oral and documentary evidence and thereafter to proceed further in accordance with law. 12. To avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 21.05.2025. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. 14. Record of the case be sent back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -9