JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the claimant, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner in spite of calling the case several times.
2. In the petition, it has been alleged that on 8.11.2004 the petitioner, who was going on a scooter as pillion rider, suffered multiple injuries including fracture on left leg below knee and also fractures on both bones of right leg in the accident, which took place near Zirakpur due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It has been further alleged that after the alleged accident, the petitioner has not recovered till date and is till on bed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal has erred while dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner for want of prosecution. She further contends that on 2.5.2006, the date when the case was fixed before the learned Tribunal for evidence of the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner had appeared before lunch break, and at that time evidence on behalf of the petitioner was not present. The case was kept after lunch. But when the counsel came after lunch, he was informed that the claim petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Counsel contends that the absence of the petitioner on that date was bonafide and unintentional as he was bed ridden and unable to walk. Therefore, he could not appear before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed to lead his entire evidence.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition, this petition deserves to be allowed. Undisputedly, the petitioner is bed ridden and unable to walk. He has suffered multiple injuries in the alleged accident, including fracture on left leg below knee and also fractures on both bones of right leg. In my opinion, the absence of the petitioner before the Tribunal on the date fixed is bonafide and unintentional. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead and conclude his entire evidence on one date to be fixed by the Tribunal.