Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to this revision may be stated thus: The applicant filed a claim petition under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the non applicants for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the applicant in an accident caused by the rash and negligent act of the non-applicant No. 3 who was the driver of the vehicle belonging to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2. Notice of claim petition was served on non-applicant No. 3, but notices of non-applicants 1 and 2 returned unserved. The case was fixed on 29-10-75 for service of notice on non-applicants No. 1 and 2. On this date when the case was called on for hearing the applicant and his counsel were not present before the Tribunal. The non-applicant No. 3, who was served was also absent. The process for non-applicants No. 1 and 2 was not paid. The tribunal therefore, dismissed the claim petition for non-appearance of the applicant and also for non-payment of the process fee. Held : The tribunal accepted the fact that one of the counsel was out of Ujjain and the other was busy in other Court. However, the tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that even if the counsel for the applicant was busy in other Court he should have deputed some junior to inform the Court that the counsel was otherwise busy and was unable to appear when the case was called on for hearing. The tribunal further observed that it was not satisfactory explained why the process fee was not paid and why the applicant could not make arrangement for service of notice by Nishadehi as prayed for by him earlier and allowed by the tribunal. While dismissing the claim petition the tribunal has observed that though the driver non-applicant No. 3 was served the petition could not proceed against him in the absence of the non-applicants 1 and 2. When it was urged before the tribunal that this order of the tribunal was patently erroneous, the tribunal negetived it by saying that it was not an application for review and therefore, it could not be considered. This reasoning of the learned tribunal was also not correct. When it was urged before the tribunal that this order of the tribunal was patently erroneous, the tribunal negetived it by saying that it was not an application for review and therefore, it could not be considered. This reasoning of the learned tribunal was also not correct. Considering the circumstances of the case and the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant I am of the opinion that the tribunal took too rigid a view in dismissing the application for restoration of the claim petition. It was argued in this Court that under the rules framed by the Motor Vehicles Act no process fee was required to be paid for service of notice on the non-applicants because no provision was made therefor in the rules. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this contention. I am of the opinion that the view of the tribunal that sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant was not proved, is not correct. Considering the stage of the claim petition and the facts that the applicant was a resident of a remote place in Andhra Pradesh and had engaged two counsel to represent him in the claim petition and sufficient cause for their non-appearance when the claim petition was called on for hearing is shown I am of opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition for non-appearance of the applicant deserves to be set aside and the claim petition restored. Revision allowed.