ORDER : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears on call for the respondent No. 3. It is seen that the name of respondent No. 2 has been stuck off in order dated 20.04.2018. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Member (FTC) No. 1, MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 74/2011. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a carpenter by profession, having sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the petitioner had filed a claim petition being MAC No. 74/2011 which is pending for disposal. 4. In order to prove the claim and the extent of injuries suffered, the petitioner had made a prayer before the learned MACT to summon the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Tinsukia Civil Hospital, Tinsukia as well as the Investigating Officer of the case. The said prayer was allowed by order dated 20.06.2018 and steps were taken by the petitioner for issuance of summons for examining the said Doctor and police. It is submitted that despite summons being issued on several occasions, the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Tinsukia Civil Hospital did not turn up to give evidence. However, by the impugned order the learned trial Court had closed the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-appearance of the witness was not owing to any fault attributed to him. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has opposed this application. 6. Having seen that in the present case the petitioner being the claimant has taken steps for securing the presence of the Doctor and police as his witness, but the learned Tribunal failed to consider that even otherwise, from the relevant provision of Motor Vehicle Act, relating to provision of accident claims, the said provisions are beneficial legislation, requiring the learned Tribunal to arrive at a truth to ascertain the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the parties did not take steps to summon the Doctor as a witness, but the Tribunal still has the power to seek medical opinion and to examine the police to arrive at a truth to give just and proper compensation to the victim of the Motor vehicle accident. Moreover, it is seen that the provision of section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act confer the power of the Civil Court to the MACT for the purpose of summoning and enforcing attendance of the witness. 7. Accordingly, the provision of Section 105 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Act, 2003 provides for summoning of witness. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if a witness summoned by the Tribunal fails to comply with the summons to appear to give evidence or to produce the document, it is within the competence of the learned Tribunal to invoke the provision of Order XVI Rule 10(2) or Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC to issue proclamation against the said witness, and in his discretion, to issue warrant with or without bail to arrest such person so as to compel the presence of the witness in compliance with the summons issued for appearance to give evidence or to produce documents. 8. It is further seen that in the claim petition also, the petitioner has mentioned that he was a carpenter by profession and, as such, this Court finds that when the petitioner is daily wage earner, earning his livelihood as a carpenter, the Tribunal is expected to have more sympathy in favour of such claimant, when it comes to secure the attendance of witness sought by such victim on motor vehicle accident. 9. The Tribunal is also required to take into consideration that if the presence of the Doctor and the police could not be secured by any party, the result would be that the claim petition and/or defence available to the contesting opposite party would be dismissed for not being able to prove the nature of injuries suffered, or other plea which runs contrary to the intent of the Motor vehicles Act, which is accepted to be a beneficial legislation so far as the victim of the Motor vehicle accident are concerned. 10. 10. Accordingly, it is found that the learned Additional Member, MACT, Tinsukia had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it by law and the order to close the evidence of the petitioner/claimant is found to be vitiated by jurisdictional error as it was the responsibility of the learned Tribunal to enforce attendance by witness. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Member (FTC) No. 1, MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 74/2011 is set aside by directing the said learned Tribunal to once again issue summons to secure the attendance of the Doctor and on failure of the said witness to appear despite receipt of summons it would be open to the learned Tribunal to enforce attendance of such witness so as to enable the learned Tribunal to arrive at a truth. 11. Hence, this application stands allowed. 12. The parties are left to bear their own cost. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 who are duly represented by the learned counsel shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 20.08.2018 without any further notice of appearance and on the said date the petitioner by producing a certified copy of this order shall seek further instructions from the said learned Tribunal.