JUDGMENT : K. Lahiri, J. 1. This is somewhat startling disposal of a Claim Case by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who made every endeavour to nip in the bud the "claim case" arising out of a motor accident, in a short-circuit manner. 2. The appellants (husband and wife) lost their well grown up young child aged about 18 years in a motor accident; the accident happened on 9-2-69 and the young man died on 20-2-69. A claim petition was filed by the parents before the Motor Accidents Claims. Tribunal at Nowgong on 21-4-69. At all relevant time, the period of limitation for making such claim application before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was 60 days. The period of limitation has been extended to 6 months. Under S. 110-A(3), Claims Tribunals have power to entertain application even after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant has been prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition on the death of their son in the motor accident before the Tribunal on 21-4-69. Along with the said application, a sworn affidavit was filed by the father (appellant No. 1) supported by a medical certificate stating that the delay in preferring the claim petition was due to his illness. The appellant No. 1 stated inter alia that he was illiterate and that he could not present the application within the limitation due to his illness. The medical certificate was that of an Assistant Surgeon, Class I of Nowgong Civil Hospital. There is no counter to the said affidavit. 3. Under the provisions of the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960, the Tribunal, on receipt of such an application could have examined the applicant on oath and recorded his statement and could have dismissed the claim petition after his examination. It did not do either The Tribunal issued notice to the parties; they appeared and filed written statements; the case was ready for hearing; the matter was unnecessarily prolonged and there was no real endeavour made by the Tribunal either to dispose of the application for condonation of the delay or the claim case itself. 4. On 18-1-71, the appellant No. 1 filed an application clarifying certain statements in the original application for condonation of the delay. 4. On 18-1-71, the appellant No. 1 filed an application clarifying certain statements in the original application for condonation of the delay. He stated inter alia that in the medical certificate, through mistake, the doctor had failed to record that he (the appellant No. 1) was advised to take rest for 5 days more after 17-4-69. He filed a fresh medical certificate by the very same Assistant Surgeon, Class I. The said applications, the affidavit in support thereof and the medical certificate are at pages 32-3-7 of the Paper Book. The appellants also filed an application praying for summoning of the doctor in question for examination in the proceedings in support of his case. No counter was filed by any of the Respondents against the affidavits filed by the appellant No. 1 regarding his illness nor the correctness of the certificates was disputed by the Respondents in any application or affidavit. 5. In the absence of any such counter, in my opinion, the Tribunal could have acted on the affidavits and the medical certificates filed along with the condonation application, but the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the claim petition on two grounds firstly, that no reason was given as to why the other claimant, namely, the mother (appellant No. 2) could not file the claim petition in time and, secondly, the doctor was found to be "very cheap" and no reliance was placed on the medical certificates. 6. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in considering that it was necessary for all the heirs and legal representatives to make such claim applications. On a bare perusal of the Rules, it appears clear that it is not at all necessary for all the heirs and legal representatives to make such an application. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have considered the effect of the illness of the husband on the wife and should have considered the effect of the death of a well grown up young man on the parents. I hold that the first ground is irrelevant and untenable. The Tribunal did not at all consider the question that the sworn affidavits were not countered by the Respondents. The correctness or the contents of the certificates were not challenged by the Respondents. I hold that the first ground is irrelevant and untenable. The Tribunal did not at all consider the question that the sworn affidavits were not countered by the Respondents. The correctness or the contents of the certificates were not challenged by the Respondents. As such, there was no impediment on the way of the Tribunal to act on such affidavits filed by the appellant No. 1 and the medical certificates. I fail to understand as to how the Tribunal could have made such an adverse comment against a responsible medical practitioner without just and sufficient reasons therefor and that too without giving him any opportunity. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the second certificate when there was some omission in the first certificate. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the second ground for rejecting the claim petition does not appear to be a correct finding. However, the provisions of R. 20 of the Assam Rules do not make the provisions of O. XIX of the Code applicable in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. As such, it is doubtful as to whether the Tribunal could have acted on the affidavits alone. 7. Be that as it may, in the instant case, I find the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside for another grave illegality committed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The appellants/claimants filed an application for summoning the doctor to, examine in the case. The Tribunal had no power and jurisdiction to refuse to summon and examine the doctor when so applied for by the appellant No. 1 in view of the clear provisions contained in R. 8 of the Assam Rules, which reads as follows: Rule 8 Summons of witnesses: If an application is presented by any party to the proceeding for the summoning of witnesses, the Claims Tribunal shall, on payment of the expenses involved, if any, issue summons for the appearance of such witnesses, unless it considers that their appearance is not necessary for a just decision of the case. 9. This Rule limits power of the Tribunal to refuse to summon a witness; it could have refused to summon the witness only if it considered that the appearance of the witness was not necessary for the just decision of the case. 9. This Rule limits power of the Tribunal to refuse to summon a witness; it could have refused to summon the witness only if it considered that the appearance of the witness was not necessary for the just decision of the case. There is no order passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the examination of the witness was not necessary for the just decision of the case. On the contrary, it is apparent that the doctor was most material witness to prove the illness of the appellant No. 1, which prevented him (the appellant No. 1) from preferring the application within the prescribed period of limitation. In this view of the matter, 1 hold that the Tribunal has violated the express provision contained in R. 8 in refusing to summon the doctor and in making the impugned order dated 20-1-1971 in M.A.C. Case No. 6 of 1969. 10. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 20-1-71 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nowgong in M.A.C. No. 6 of 1969 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter expeditiously bearing it in mind that the application was filed on 21-4-69 before the Tribunal. I direct that the Tribunal should dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the records. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of Rs. 300/- payable by the Respondents to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 100/- each.