JUDGMENT 1. - This Court issued notices at the admission stage for finally disposal of these appeals to the respondents. Except respondent No. 3, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. These three appeals are against the award dated 26th April, 2002 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, dismissed the three claim petitions filed by the three different set of the claimants. The claim petitions were dismissed as the claimants did not produce the evidence in support of their claim petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred at Nasik in Maharashtra and since, the claimants are resident of Jodhpur District of Rajasthan, therefore, they preferred the claim petitions in the Court at Jodhpur. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in the accident three persons died. The appellants are very poor persons and could not obtain the relevant documents from Nasik as it was very difficult for them to obtain the copies from the criminal proceedings initiated by the police due to the accident in Maharashtra. It is submitted that the Tribunal granted five adjournments to the claimants, but in want of documents, they could not produce their evidence. It is also submitted that the appellant submitted an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, that too, was rejected by the Tribunal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in a case, where three persons have died, a lenient view may be taken and the appellants may be provided more opportunity to produce their evidence looking to the peculiar facts that the accident occurred hundreds of kilometers away from the place of residence of the claimants appellants and in a different State. It was very difficult to find out the relevant documents from the Court situated in Maharashtra for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submitted that the claim petitions were filed in the year 1998, the issues were framed in the year 2000 and the claimants were granted opportunity to produce their evidence, but they failed to produce the same, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim petitions for want of any proof. 6. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 6. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is clear that on 26th April, 2002 itself the Tribunal passed the separate order wherein the Tribunal rejected prayer of the appellants for grant of further time to produce the evidence despite the fact that the time was sought by the claimants by showing different causes for all the claimants. It is relevant to mention here that the claimants as well as the driver of the vehicle, who died in the accident are resident of district Jodhpur of Rajasthan whereas the accident took place at Nasik in Maharashtra. In view of the above, the Tribunal should have shown more indulgence to the claimants looking to the peculiar facts of the case. I do not find any reason to upheld the order of the Tribunal by which the claimants' evidence was closed and their application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was rejected. 7. In view of the above, these appeals succeeds. The appellants are granted further opportunity to produce their evidence. The claimants as well as respondent Insurance Company shall remain present before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur on 17th May, 2004. It will be responsibility of the claimants to take steps for service of other non-claimants. The claimants shall produce their all evidence within four dates, which may be fixed by the Tribunal and the claimants shall seek no more adjournments. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petitions on merits expeditiously in accordance with law.Order accordingly. *******