JUDGMENT : Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.—This appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the other side. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 86 of 2007 whereunder upon failure to adduce evidence, Tribunal dismissed the application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 12.2.2008 adjournment was sought by the claimant for adducing evidence. Final opportunity was granted while imposing costs of Rs. 300. However on the date fixed for evidence, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, therefore, the case was fixed on 17.3.2008, i.e., the date for further orders, the case was fixed for evidence of the claimant on 28.3.2008. An application for adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151, CPC was filed on behalf of the claimant stating that the claimant was ill and was unable to come to court and, therefore, adjournment should be granted. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the prayer and dismissed the application for compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal erred in refusing adjournment to the claimant for adducing evidence. For the reasons mentioned in the application for adjournment and upon good cause having been shown for non-appearance of the claimant as also her witnesses, the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the application under Order XVII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. 5. In the result, impugned order dated 28.3.2008 is set aside. The Tribunal shall give a reasonable opportunity to the claimant for adducing evidence. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant undertakes that the claimant shall adduce evidence on the date fixed by the Tribunal and shall not seek any further adjournment. 6. With this observation, the appeal is allowed.