L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. , is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District judge), Anantapur, dated 11-3-2004, in I. A. No. 381 of 2004 in O. P. No. 66 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. P. No. 66 of 1995 before the Tribunal claiming compensation alleging that he sustained injuries in an accident, which took place on 26-7-1994, reolving the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The trial of the O. P. commenced. At that stage, he noticed that the O. P. , was dismissed for default against the 1st respondent, on 9-7-1996, due to nonpayment of batta. Therefore, he filed i. A. No. 381 of 2004 under Order 9 Rule 9 of c. P. C. to set aside the order of dismissal. Through an order under appeal, the trial court rejected the I. A. ( 3 ) SRI K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client noticed the fact that the O. P. was dismissed for non-payment of batta, against the 1st respondent, only when the trial of the o. P. commenced. He contends that there was no negligence on the part of his client in pursuing the matter. ( 4 ) THE 1 st respondent refused to receive the notice sent to him in this C. M. A. ( 5 ) SRI M. V. S. Sai Kumar, learned standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the I. A. was filed after a lapse of eight years, and there was hardly any explanation forthcoming from the appellant for such an enormous delay. He submits that with the dismissal of O. P. , against the 1st respondent, nothing remained to be adjudicated in it. ( 6 ) THE O. P. filed by the appellant was dismissed against the 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle, for non-payment of batta, on 9-7-1996. It is true that the I. A. , was filed nearly after a lapse of eight years, and the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, deserves to be taken serious note of. However, one aspect, which needs to be noted is that the appellant would have been aware of the order, dated 9-7-1996, had it been a case where the O. P. in its entirety was dismissed. However, one aspect, which needs to be noted is that the appellant would have been aware of the order, dated 9-7-1996, had it been a case where the O. P. in its entirety was dismissed. Since the O. P. , was continuing on the file, the appellant and his counsel in the Tribunal were under the bona fide impression that the o. P. , is in tact in all respects. There was no occasion for them to verify the matter till the trial commenced. It was only, at that stage, they noticed the dismissal against the 1st respondent. ( 7 ) CHAPTERS 11 and 12 of the Motor vehicles Act are almost in the form of welfare legislation. The endeavour of the parliament as well as the Courts has always been to relieve the proceedings from technicalities. The order under appeal hardly states any reason, worth its name, as to how the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered. The entire order reads as under:"dismissed as belated as trial has already commenced by the same counsel examining P. W. 1. " ( 8 ) ONE hardly would be in a position to discern as to what exactly the Court intended to express. Valuable rights conferred on the persons under enactment, cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner. This Court is of the view that the order of dismissal for default against the 1st respondent can be set aside on payment of costs, quantified, at rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only ). The counsel for the appellant paid the same to the counsel for the respondent across the bar. ( 9 ) THE C. M. A. , is accordingly allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the i. A. No. 381 of 2004 in O. P. No. 66 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Anantapur, shall stand allowed.