JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has filed this appeal against the award dated 14.2.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharmshala, Camp at Una. By means of impugned award compensation in the sum of Rs.2,47,000/- with 12% interest has been granted in favour of respondents No. l and 2 (hereinafter referred to as £he claimants). While awarding compensation, it has been ordered that in case the amount of compensation with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 21.1.1991 is not deposited within 30 days, the liability for payment of interest has been increased to 15% p.a. from the said date till the date of payment/deposit of the amount; end counsel fee was assessed at Rs. 1100/-. 2. Claimants filed a petition for the grant of compensation in respect of the death of Darshan Lal husband of claimant Santosh Kumari and father of master Gaurav minor and a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was claimed both under no fault liability as well as under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as the Act). In this petition, Raj Kumar was impleaded as a driver and Kaushal Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Taliwal was impleaded as owner and both of them are being referred to hereinafter as driver and owner, respectively. Factum of accident is not disputed by respondents No. l and 2 in the written statement filed them. But at the same time, it was pleaded to be that vehicle was being driven cautiously on his left side and when it came near culvert, deceased suddenly ran across the road, when brakes were applied in order to save the deceased by the driver, but the deceased again turned back and struck with the vehicle. In these circumstances, it was denied that the accident was either due to rash or negligent driving. It was further pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased, who was pleaded to behaving some mental dis-order and being a person who was a mentally retarded doing no job. In the reply filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal below who while contesting the claim petition amongst other things, it was pleaded that the vehicle was being driven without a valid licence as also identical pleas of the deceased having mental disorder etc. In the reply filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal below who while contesting the claim petition amongst other things, it was pleaded that the vehicle was being driven without a valid licence as also identical pleas of the deceased having mental disorder etc. was also raised by the Insurance Company. In the aforesaid background, the parties went to trial on the following issues : 1. Whether Darshan Lal died as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1? OPP 2. In case issue No. l is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. l was having valid licence, if not its effect ?OPR1 4. Relief. After conclusion of the trial, compensation in the aforesaid terms was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellant as well as owner and driver of the vehicle in question. 3. Sole ground urged by Sh. Rajiv Mehta in this case is that the Tribunal below had wrongly closed evidence of his client and thereafter fastened it with the liability for payment of the compensation. While advancing his this sub-mission further, Shri Rajiv Mehta urged that his client could have possibly brought its evidence but .despite that the Tribunal below closed its evidence which has not only materially prejudiced his client but has further resulted into failure of justice. As such, he urged for reversal of the impugned award and remitting back the case for trial to the Tribunal below and consequently permitting his client to lead evidence in support of its case. All these submissions have been controvert by Sh. N. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants, who urged that in the instant case, the appellant is abusing the process of law and court and as a step-in-aid in that exercise, the appellant has filed the present appeal. In support of his plea that the evidence had been rightly closed by the Court below, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that despite enormous opportunities and 3 last opportunities no steps had been taken in accordance with law except for filing an application lastly on 24.12.1994. 4. In order to properly appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties., reference needs to be made to the order sheets of the Tribunal below. 4. In order to properly appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties., reference needs to be made to the order sheets of the Tribunal below. On 14.1.1994 evidence was closed by the claimants and case was adjourned to 8.2.1994 for evidence of the appellant, owner and driver. Process fee and diet money was ordered to be deposited within 3 days. On 8.2.1994 efforts for conciliation had failed, however, no evidence was either present or summoned. Claim petition was transferred to the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una for 19.3.1994, but it appears to have been taken up on 21.3.1994. When again it was adjourned to 21.4.1994 for the evidence as aforesaid on 21.4.1994 since no evidence was present so last opportunity was granted and witnesses were ordered to be produced for 21.5.1994, on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave when the case was adjourned to 14.6.1994 for proper orders. On this date no evidence had been summoned, however, after the statement of driver had been recorded, evidence of owner and driver was closed and for appellants evidence it was adjourned to 21.6.1994 when again the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was fixed for 19.8.1994 for proper orders. 5. File appears to have been taken up on 25.10.1994 when the case was adjourned for evidence of the appellant for 21.11.1994. On this date again no evidence was present and another last opportunity was granted for evidence of the appellant for 24.12.1994. On this date again no evidence was present nor summoned and one another opportunity was prayed for which was granted by the tribunal below and case was adjourned to 21.1.1995 and witnesses were ordered to be summoned on filing of process fee and diet money and dasti summons were ordered to be given. Since process fee had been filed late so witnesses were not summoned for 21.1.1995 and were ordered to be summoned for 27.1.1995 on previews process fee. It appears that this case was taken up on 10.10.1995 on application of the claimants for early hearing. 6. Since process fee had been filed late so witnesses were not summoned for 21.1.1995 and were ordered to be summoned for 27.1.1995 on previews process fee. It appears that this case was taken up on 10.10.1995 on application of the claimants for early hearing. 6. Again on 17.11.1995 no evidence on behalf of the appellant was present nor served and the case was adjourned to 11.12.1995, on which date also position remained the same as no witness was present on behalf of the appellant when service was ordered to be effected by dasti summons as well as by ordinary process. While doing so, the tribunal below had ordered that the learned counsel for the appellant is sounded that in case evidence is not produced, the same will be closed by order of the court and finally on 18.1.1996 the evidence was closed by order of the Court. However, policy of insurance was taken on record as Ex. RX. Against this order appellant preferred C.R.No.39/96. However, when the said revision came up before this court on 18.3.1996, it transpired that on 14.2.1996 die claim petition had been finally decided by the tribunal below as such revision became infrcutuous. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant—Insurance Company to take up points raised in the said revision petition in the appeal that may be filed against the award. 7. Narration of the above facts shows that the appellant was taking the, court for granted that it would take no steps much less timely steps by either summoning or producing its evidence before the tribunal below. Reading of the file of the tribunal below to which a brief reference has been made in the preceding paras of this judgment shows the sorry state of affairs as well as action of the appellant. Record of the tribunal below further highlights the seriousness with which the appellant as a limb of welfare State and as a public sector undertaking was prosecuting the case. On the basis of the facts existing on the file of this case, this Court is further of the view that the appellant was least concerned about the prosecution of its case before the Tribunal. Ordinarily, after framing of the issues, list of witnesses should have been filed within a reasonable time. Issues were framed in this case on 23.4.1993 by the Tribunal below. Ordinarily, after framing of the issues, list of witnesses should have been filed within a reasonable time. Issues were framed in this case on 23.4.1993 by the Tribunal below. No doubt, extent of applicability of the provisions of either code of Civil Procedure beyond what has been enumerated under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act or Evidence Act cannot be applied with strictness. So far as the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are concerned, those can be taken to be reasonable and just, and principles under lying those be used for the purpose of regulating the procedure by the Tribunal below, may not be with all its technicalities. 8. Considering the present case, despite last opportunities having been granted, appellant did not take any step whatsoever to either summon or bring itself its evidence except for filing a highly belated application for the reasons best known to it. At this stage to be fair to Shri Rajiv Mehta, it is essential to consider his submission that his client was acting bona fide and had taken all possible steps. When he was confronted with the facts existing on the file to which a brief reference has been made hereinabove, it is clear that the submission has been made simply to be rejected on behalf of the appellant. This court is further constrained to hold that no serious step appears to have been taken that too diligently for summoning its evidence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the closure of evidence is either unjust or improper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. It may not be out of place to mention that evidence of the appellant should have been closed long ago by the Tribunal below still opportunity one after the other was granted to the appellant, which also have not been properly availed by it, why and for what reasons could not be explained by Sh.Rajiv Mehta. 9. It is high time that some introspection is done by a public sector undertaking like the appellant who are entrusted with the management of public funds. 9. It is high time that some introspection is done by a public sector undertaking like the appellant who are entrusted with the management of public funds. It may not be out of place to mention that if the appellant had any legitimate basis for contesting the claim of the claimants as has been urged in this appeal, then all endeavour with sincerity should have been made to contest the case of the claimants. The extent of seriousness as well as sincerity on the part of the appellant is reflected from the zimni orders passed by the tribunal below to which a brief reference has been made herein this judgment. 10. Shri Rajiv Mehta learned counsel for the appellant very fairly staed that unless his client was permitted to lead evidence, he may not be in a position to contest the award made in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal below and rig; so because the evidence examined on behalf of the claimants has remained un-rebutted and the appellant h as failed to contest the claim for want of evidence. 11. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. Costs on the parties. Appeal dismissed.