JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.
1. This is an appeal against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Second Additional District Judge), Azamgarh allowing the application Under Section 110-A. and awarding a sum of Rs. 240,000/- by way of compensation against defendants 1 to 4. The main submission of the appellants is that they were not given proper opportunity to defend the matter before the Claims Tribunal and although and application was moved by the newly engaged counsel for adjournment on the ground that he could not prepare the case, the same was rejected and the court proceeded to decide the matter expaite.
2. From the judgment, it is apparent that the claim petition was filed some time in 1985 and a lot of time was taken by the defendants in filing their written statements. Ultimately recording of evidence was commenced on 10.5.1989 when P.W. 1 was examined. Defendants 2 were present through counsel at the time of direct examination of the witness. An application was moved for adjournment on which 17.5.1989 was fixed to enable the appellant to cross examination witness on the adjourned date again an application for adjournment was moved on behalf of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that defendant No. 1 was busy in connection with a marriage in the family. That application was also allowed making a specific direction that the parties should come prepared to complete the cross-examination and for further proceedings on 23.6.1989. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 20/- for the said adjournment. On 23.5.1989, again an application was moved, this time by a newly engaged counsel and it was prayed that some other date may given. The application was rejected by the court and thereafter after P.W. 1 had been cross examined by defendant No.4, the court proceeded make the award.
3. The main submission of Sri Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, is that no proper opportunity has been given to the appellants to adduce evidence and to cross-examine P.W. 1 He, in this connection, referred to the Rules framed in the State of U.P. in respect of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules. His submission is that a party has a right to be given an opportunity of adducing evidence. The learned Counsel appears to have a very queer idea about the opportunity which is to be given to a party when a date is fixed for evidence. The parties are supposed to come with evidence and to cross examine the evidence of that person. It does not require any specific order being passed against each and every defendant that his evidence would he recorded on a particular date. In this case the evidence of P.W. 1 was examined on 16.5.1989. It could not be concluded on account of the own fault of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Despite time being granted repeatedly and despite a every specifie order passed on 17.5.1989 that the parties must come prepared on 23.5.1989. There could be no justification for the defendants to again move an application for adjournment, be that on the ground that a new counsel had been engaged. The learned Counsel has also passed on a copy of the order passed on 23.5.1989 on the adjournment application moved by the appellants. This order clearly shows that the case was taken up during the prelunch period and was adjourned for post-lunch period when the application for adjournment was moved. This application was rejected for reasons already discussed earlier. In view of what has been stated above, in our opinion, the court was fully justified in adopting the course it had in rejecting the application for adjournment and in proceeding to decide the matter in absence of the appellants. It was the own fault of the defendants that opportunity given by the court was not availed by, them. In there circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.