ORDER Leave granted. Appellant made a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of an accident in which he sustained very serious injuries. But his application was dismissed on the ground of limitation and also for default of the appellant to appear. He filed a restoration application which also happened to be dismissed as not maintainable and for not specifying the reasons why the claim was not preferred within time. What the appellant did thereafter was to file a fresh claim on 6.11.95. The claims tribunal dismissed it on the ground that a second claim petition is not maintainable. Though he approached the High Court against the said order he was not benefited by it. The impugned order shows that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the claims tribunal on 30.9.94 had become final and cannot be re-opened. Now the appellant has filed the present appeal in challenge of both the orders, one dated 8.2.95 as per which the application for restoration of the claimant was dismissed and other in challenge of the judgment of the High Court dated 26.4.2000 as per which his grievance that his second claim petition ought to have been allowed was discountenanced. We are not disposed to upset with the judgment of the High Court dated 26.4.2000 because the reasoning of the High Court that a second claim cannot be sustained does not call for any interference. Be that as it may, we have a great concern in this matter on account of the very serious injuries substained by the appellant in the motor accident, if his averments in the original claim can be accepted as true. The disability certificate produced by him shows that he is physically handicapped with 75% of physical impairment in relation to his whole body as a consequence of the accident. In such a situation the tribunal should have been more considerate to him when it insisted on his physical presence before the tribunal on 30.9.94 and subsequently on 8.2.95. It is only a matter of easy realisation for any court that a person who had suffered such substantial impairment of his physical condition would not have been able to reach the Court for making his physical presence. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 30.9.94 passed in Claim Petition No. 539/94. It is only a matter of easy realisation for any court that a person who had suffered such substantial impairment of his physical condition would not have been able to reach the Court for making his physical presence. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 30.9.94 passed in Claim Petition No. 539/94. We direct the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the claim petition and dispose it of in accordance with law. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Ram Prasad v. riental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2001(8) Supreme 463 00023