1. Claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the injuries received by the appellant on December 19, 2001 at 5.30 p.m. near Convent High School Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, because of the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car no. DL-4CN-5449, the appellant Mrs. Anita Gupta filed a claim petition with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. 2. It appears that after framing of issues by the Claims Tribunal on January 6, 2003, the claim petition was dismissed in default of appellants appearance on 30.3.2005. After its restoration on 15.07.2005 only one opportunity appears to have been allowed to the claimant to lead her evidence in the case whereafter it was dismissed for lack of evidence on 16.09.2005. 3. Appellants learned counsel submits that the claimant had gone to her parental house in Himachal Pradesh and it was because of his disability to inform the claimant on her available address of Jammu that requisite instructions could not be conveyed to the appellant to produce her evidence in the case. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing for speedier remedy to seek compensation for the injuries sustained in the Motor Vehicular accident, the appellant was required to be given some more time by the Tribunal to substantiate her claim, And that providing of only one opportunity to lead evidence, after restoration of the claim petition, has resulted in failure of justice. 4. Insurance Companys learned counsel submitted that having failed to produce evidence in support of her claim, despite several opportunities having been allowed to the claimant even before the restoration of the claim petition, the failure of the claimant to produce her evidence cannot be condoned to provide her yet another opportunity of leading evidence, And that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law in rejecting her claim petition on merits for her failure to produce evidence in support thereof. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that affording of only one opportunity to the claimant to lead evidence in support of her claim may not serve the ends of justice additionally because I do not see any reason to disbelieve the appellants learned counsel who has explained the reason because of which he could not inform the claimant, who had gone to her parental house in Himachal Pradesh. 6. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal appears to have dismissed the appellants claim petition hurriedly, without affording sufficient opportunity to the claimant to substantiate her claim. 7. It is, therefore, considered just and proper to afford yet another opportunity to the appellant to substantiate her claim before the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, setting aside order dated 16.09.2005 of the Claims Tribunal, appellants claim petition is revived for Tribunals fresh consideration after affording sufficient time to the claimant to substantiate her claim. 9. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu on July 3, 2009.