Rajendar Parshad vs Rajbir and Another

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3rd November, 1989, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby the application for restoration of the claim petition dismissed in default was declined.

The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries caused to him in accident. The claim petition was filed on 3rd April, 1984, u/s 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act. On 23rd May, 1985, when the case was fixed for ex pane evidence of the petitioner, the same was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. An application for restoration was filed on 29th August, 1985, but the same was dismissed on 6th March, 1987. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 2123 of 1987 in this Court which was allowed on 19th October, 1987 with the direction that the Tribunal shall decide the application for restoration on merits and uninfluenced by the factum of its being filed beyond a period of 90 days (Sic. 30 days). In spite of the said observations made by this Court, the Tribunal dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 3rd November, 1989, on the ground that there was no sufficient cause to restore the application as there was no explanation why the application could not be filed earlier.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the Tribunal was wrong and unwarranted. This court had already observed that the application will be decided afresh on merits and uninfluenced by the factum of its being filed beyond a period of 90 days (Sic. 30 days). In spite of that the Tribunal took the view that there was no explanation on record as to why the petitioner did not obtain a copy of the order of dismissal on 13th August, 1985, when it was ready. Thus, according to learned Tribunal, the claimant had (Sic. no) good reasons to proceed with the claim petition which was dismissed in default.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I find that the whole approach of the learned Tribunal was wrong and illegal. The question of limitation was not to be taken into consideration in view of the observations made by this Court earlier. As a matter of fact, the claim petition should have been restored on payment of costs, if any. Since it was only an exparte evidence to be recorded on 23rd May, 1985, the claim petition has been delayed unnecessarily.

Consequently, this petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously on merits. The parties have been directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 14th January, 1991.