JUDGMENT Appeal allowed for reasons to follow. The order impugned is passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the application of the appellant-applicant for restoring to file his application under section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, dismissed for default. The impugned order justifies the earlier order on the ground that steps for riling P.F. had not been taken and there was no reasonable ground, therefore, to set aside the exparte dismissal of the claim petition. Such a view is not tenable because of the holding of this Court in Shahzad Khan (1986 (I) MPWN 28]. It has been held that for ensuring service on non-applicant, when a petition is made for compensation for death occuring in Motor Accident case it shall be duty of the Claimant Tribunal to do the needful. Nonapplicants are to be served any how and steps for process etc. arc not to be taken by the applicant-claimants. Therefore, there could not be any lapse or default on the part of the claimants-appellants. They had not sinned initially and that was not compounded at any time subsequently. The impugned order is, therefore, set aisde. The claims Tribunal is directed to restore to file the claim petition and to hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Shri V.K. Sharma, who appears for respondent No.3, makes a reasonable prayer. He contends that when such restoration is made, eventually liability in regard to interest of the non-applicant" is to be taken care of. He is correct because in Sanjay Kumar v. Munnalal (1992 (I) MPJR 89) I have taken the view on remanding for retrial a claim petition that all interest due payable under the Act for the interim period of the default of the claimants, liability would not be saddled on the non-applicants. That question, therefore, shall also he examined when finally award is passed by the Tribunal.