JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. R. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though on earlier occasions, learned counsel for those respondents had appeared. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 today when the matter is called for hearing, though their names are shown in the cause list. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (as amended), (in short, the Act), is preferred against the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati (in short, the Claims Tribunal), in MAC Case No. 1869/2009. By the said order dated 25.07.2013, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application, MAC Case No. 1869/2009, when none appeared for the claimant on that date. The present appellants are the legal heirs of the original claimant, Samser Ali (since deceased). 3. A brief narration of the facts appears to be necessary. On 31.12.2008, at about 3.00 p.m., Samser Ali tried to board a city bus bearing registration No. AS-25/A-8883 at its scheduled stoppage at Paltan Bazar, A.T. Road, opposite of Vishal Market, Guwahati for going towards Ganeshguri, Guwahati. When Samser Ali tried to board the city bus, the driver of the city bus allegedly drove the vehicle all on a sudden in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, Samser Ali fell down on the road from the city bus and he was crushed under and dragged away by the aforesaid city bus. As a result of the said incident, he suffered serious injuries on many parts of his person. It was claimed that he had undergone medical treatment at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital as an indoor patient. 4. Alleging rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-25/A-8883, the city bus, a claim application was filed before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation by Samser Ali as the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. The said claim application was registered as MAC Case No. 1869/2009. 5. After registration of MAC Case No. 1869/2009, notices were issued to the insurer, the owner and the driver of the vehicle, who were impleaded as opposite parties therein. The said claim application was registered as MAC Case No. 1869/2009. 5. After registration of MAC Case No. 1869/2009, notices were issued to the insurer, the owner and the driver of the vehicle, who were impleaded as opposite parties therein. After their appearance, the opposite parties i.e. the insurer and the owner of the vehicle, contested the case by submitting their written statements. Thereafter, on 04.02.2011, issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal. After framing of the issues, a number of adjournments were taken on behalf of the claimant. When on 25.07.2013, the case was fixed for evidence of the claimant's side, none appeared for the claimant though the opposite party-insurer was represented by their learned counsel. Noticing from the records that several chances were given to the claimant to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the case in view of his failure to adduce the evidence on several dates. The Claims Tribunal has observed that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. 6. Assailing the said order dated 25.07.2013, the instant appeal had been preferred by the claimant. During pendency of the appeal, Samser Ali, the original claimant, had expired on 21.05.2016 leaving behind three legal heirs i.e. his wife and two sons. By order dated 14.11.2018, passed in I.A. (C) No. 891/2016, the three legal heirs of the deceased, Samser Ali who originally filed the appeal, have been substituted in his place as the appellants. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellants that the claim application ought not to have been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal for non-prosecution. It was only on 25.07.2013, there was no representation on behalf of the claimant. Though on six earlier occasions i.e. on 05.08.2011, 19.10.2011, 27.03.2012, 30.08.2012, 05.02.2013 and 01.06.2013, prayers were made on behalf of the claimant seeking time, on each occasion, the Claims Tribunal was pleased to accept the ground for which adjournment was sought on behalf of the claimant. When the Claims Tribunal had found the grounds sufficient to allow the adjournment, it could not have recorded that finding in the impugned order when it was only on 25.07.2013, the claimant side was not represented before the Tribunal. 8. Mr. When the Claims Tribunal had found the grounds sufficient to allow the adjournment, it could not have recorded that finding in the impugned order when it was only on 25.07.2013, the claimant side was not represented before the Tribunal. 8. Mr. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has fairly submitted that a claim application filed under the provisions of the Act ought not to have been dismissed in the manner as it had been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal in the instant case. If the claimant had not appeared, the Claims Tribunal could have adjudicated the claim application on the basis of the materials available on record. He has further submitted that as the proceedings had proceeded to the stage of evidence, the claim application should proceed from that stage onwards. 9. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. The position in this regard is well settled. A reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti Rani Debnath (Das) versus Jyotsna Debnath, 2007 4 GauLR 121 . It is held therein that an application for claim for compensation cannot be dismissed on account of default. If the claimant does not appear, or fails to take steps, or does not come forward to prove his claim, the Claims Tribunal has the power to adjudicate the claim on the available materials on record on merit and accordingly, it may pass award to the effect that claimant is not entitled to get any compensation as the claimant could not prove his case. It is also held therein that even in case of repeated adjournment and non-operation by the claimant, the claim petition could be adjudicated on merits even in absence of claimant by granting award of compensation that may be justifiable on the available documents. 10. I have perused the contents of the impugned order dated 25.07.2013, as has been indicated above. As regards adjournment sought on six occasions by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal, it, prima facie, appears that the claimant did not show the right earnestness in pursuing the claim application. The Claims Tribunal had dismissed the claim application on the failure of the claimant to adduce evidence, thereby, holding that he was not entitled to any compensation. As regards adjournment sought on six occasions by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal, it, prima facie, appears that the claimant did not show the right earnestness in pursuing the claim application. The Claims Tribunal had dismissed the claim application on the failure of the claimant to adduce evidence, thereby, holding that he was not entitled to any compensation. The Claims Tribunal did not go through the materials available on record to hold that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation on merits. 11. Noticeably, the claimant who was pursuing the claim application on 25.07.2013, has expired, in the meantime, on 21.05.2016 during the pendency of the appeal. After his expiry, the appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of the original claimant, have pursued the appeal before the appellate court. These appellants, who have substituted the original claimant (since deceased), were not there in the capacity of claimant before the Claims Tribunal when the claim application was dismissed on 25.07.2013. As there appears to be no fault on the part of these appellants i.e. the legal heirs of the original claimant, I am of the considered opinion that for the interest of justice and to meet the end of justice, the appellants deserve an opportunity to pursue the claim application as claimants for bringing the same to a logical conclusion. 12. In view of the position of law, enunciated by this court in Jyoti Rani Debnath (Das) (supra), and considering the entire fact situation obtaining in the present case, as mentioned above, the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 is set aside and the appellants are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 05.08.2019 and thereafter, the learned Claims Tribunal would proceed to dispose of the claim application in accordance with law. 13. It is made clear that the appellants, who will now be the claimants, shall not make prayer for adjournments in the matter save and except under compelling circumstances. The learned Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the claim application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from 05.08.2019. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Registry to send back the records forthwith.