JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 8.11.1985 passed in Claim Case No. 15 of 1985 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, dismissing the application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of the claimant for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000/- against the non-applicant for the death of Lata, who, according to the applicant, met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of bus No. RJB 259, which at the relevant time was being driven by respondent No. 1. 2. According to applicant, the deceased met with the accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus No. RJB 259, Fajalkhan, respondent No. 1, and, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation. In the joint written statement the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegations made by the claimants. 3. After framing the issues the court found that it has not been proved that the driver was driving the vehicle on 24.5.1985 rashly and negligently and it was also found not proved that the death of the girl was caused due to the rash and negligent driving and, therefore, dismissed the claim. 4. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant has drawn my attention to the fact that proper opportunity to lead evidence was not given to the claimant by the court according to whom the case was fixed for evidence on 7.11.1985, but on that date the counsel for the claimants suffered a heart attack, therefore, he was admitted in the hospital. An application which is on the record was filed in the court for adjournment, but the adjournment was refused by the court. From the second application filed on the same day, it appears that because of the refusal of the adjournment the claimant engaged another counsel who made an application stating that two witnesses have been examined and the remaining witnesses could not remain present because of the impression that as the counsel being sick the case shall not proceed. But the court did not allow an adjournment and decided the case without affording a proper opportunity to the claimants to lead the evidence. Therefore, the refusal of an opportunity to lead evidence by the subordinate court has caused a failure of justice. 5. But the court did not allow an adjournment and decided the case without affording a proper opportunity to the claimants to lead the evidence. Therefore, the refusal of an opportunity to lead evidence by the subordinate court has caused a failure of justice. 5. I have gone through the record and the proceedings dated 7.11.1985. The proceedings show that the application for adjournment filed due to the ailment of the counsel was rejected and, thereafter, evidence of the witnesses present was recorded by engaging another counsel with a prayer to afford an opportunity to lead the evidence of the remaining witnesses. But the court rejected the prayer and closed the case and the award has been passed. 6. The proceedings read with the two applications mentioned above clearly go to show that the absence of the counsel who had prepared the case and who was engaged by the parties could not attend the court because of the circumstances beyond his control as he had suffered a heart attack. As such the court should have considered this aspect of the matter and allowed the adjournment. In any case when two witnesses were already examined an opportunity should have been given to examine the remaining witnesses. But the court declined to do so. As such, in my opinion, the award has been passed without affording a proper opportunity to the applicants to lead their evidence in support of their claim. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. The award impugned is quashed. The case is remitted to the court below with a direction to record the remaining evidence which may be led by the claimants and decide the case after affording proper opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. As it is an old case it is further directed that this case shall be given priority over other cases in the matter of disposal. There shall be no order as to the costs of this appeal.