JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The principal question involved in this appeal is whether Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for default after settlement of the issues? Assailing the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (in short 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.J.C. No. 09 of 2012 (Fulkunwar v. Suresh Kumar Sahoo), the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'M.V. Act'), by which their application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under: 2.1. Appellants-claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation before the Claims Tribunal for death of Sarjuram aged about 48 years stating, inter alia, that on 19.8.2009, respondent-non-applicant No. 1 while driving the offending motor cycle No. CG 16-F 0429 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent-non-applicant No. 2 and insured with respondent-non-applicant No. 3, dashed Sarjuram, by which he suffered injury and later on died and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,49,600/- jointly and severally from non-applicants-respondents. 2.2 Respondents-non-applicants herein filed written statement and opposed the claim. The claim petition was listed on 20.7.2011 for appellant-claimant's further evidence after settlement of issues and on that day, learned Claims Tribunal, finding no representation on behalf of appellants-claimants, dismissed the claim petition for want of prosecution. 2.3 The appellants-claimants filed an application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151 of the CPC for restoration of the Claim Case No. 19 of 2011 stating, inter alia, that his counsel instead of noting the date of hearing 20.7.2011, noted as 20.8.2011 in his diary and consequently, appellants-claimants' witnesses and their counsel could not appear when the case was called for hearing and the non-appearance being bona fide, the claim petition be restored to its original number. Respondents-non-applicants opposed the restoration application. 2.4 The learned Claims Tribunal by its impugned order rejected the restoration application finding that the reasons assigned by the appellants-claimants are not sufficient, and appellants-claimants have failed to show sufficient cause for nonappearance when the case was called up for hearing, therefore, there is no ground to restore the claim petition. 3. Respondents-non-applicants opposed the restoration application. 2.4 The learned Claims Tribunal by its impugned order rejected the restoration application finding that the reasons assigned by the appellants-claimants are not sufficient, and appellants-claimants have failed to show sufficient cause for nonappearance when the case was called up for hearing, therefore, there is no ground to restore the claim petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondent-non-applicant No. 3 and considered the rival submissions made therein. 4. The M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (in short 'Rules of 1994') prescribes the procedure for trial of the claim petition. In this context, I may preferably refer to rules 224, 230, 231, 234, 238 and 240 of the Rules of 1994: 224. Summary dismissal of application.-The Claims Tribunal may after considering the application and the statement of the applicant recorded under rule 223 dismiss the application summarily, if for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Claims Tribunal is of the opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding therewith: Provided that the Claims Tribunal shall not reject the application made for compensation u/s 140 on the grounds of any technical defects but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defects rectified. 230. Framing and determination of issues.-(1) After considering the written statement or the result of examination of the opposite party and the result of the local inspection, if any, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to frame the issues. After framing the issues, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. 231. Summoning of witnesses.--If an application is presented by any party to the proceeding for the summoning of witnesses, the Claims Tribunal shall on payment of the expenses involved, if any, issue summons for the appearance of such witnesses, unless it considers that their appearance is not necessary for a just decision of the case. 234. Power of summary examination.-- (1) The Claims Tribunal during an inspection or at any other time, save at a formal hearing of a case pending before it, may examine summarily any person likely to be able to give information relevant to such case, whether such person has been or is to be called as a witness in the case or not, and whether any or all the parties are present or not. (2) No oath shall be administered to a person examined under sub-rule (1). (3) Statements made by persons examined under sub-rule (1), if reduced to writing, shall not be signed by the persons making the statement, nor shall they, except as hereinafter provided, be incorporated in the record or utilised by the Claims Tribunal for the purpose of arriving at a decision in the case. (4) If a witness who has been examined under sub-rule (1) makes in evidence any material statement contradicting any statement made by him in such examination and reduced to writing, the Claims Tribunal may call his attention to such statement and shall in that case direct that the parties be furnished with the relevant part of such statement for the purpose of examining or cross-examining the witness. (5) Any statement or part of a statement which is furnished to the parties under sub-rule (4) shall be incorporated in record. Where a case is settled by agreement between the parties, the Claims Tribunal may incorporate in the record any statement under sub-rule (1) and may utilise such statement for the purpose of justifying its acceptance of, or a refusal to accept, the agreement reached at. 238. Award of compensation.--(1) The Claims Tribunal, in passing orders, shall record concisely in a judgment the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurers and the owner of the vehicle who may be found vicariously responsible for causing the accident and also the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. (2) Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the amount payable to each of them. The Claims Tribunal may in its discretion pass such order in respect of costs incidental to any proceedings before it as it may deem fit. 240. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries.-Applications of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Claims Tribunal may in its discretion pass such order in respect of costs incidental to any proceedings before it as it may deem fit. 240. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries.-Applications of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules, the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), namely, those contained in Order 5, rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20; Order 9; Order 18, rules 3 to 10; Order 16, rules 2 to 21, Order 17; Order 21 and Order 23, rules 1 to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be applicable thereto. 5. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules, I am of the considered opinion that though the Rules provide for summary dismissal of a claim petition but if the claim petition is not dismissed summarily and the proceeding is continued in accordance with the subsequent Rules and ultimately issues are framed, the Claims Tribunal must decide the issues and record its finding on the judgment as provided in the Rules. The Act and Rules enjoin a duty upon a Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim, decide the issues and record its finding thereon notwithstanding the default of either party and after the issues are framed, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition for default or to refuse to make an award and I hold so accordingly. 6. In Shivshankar and others Vs. Sarjeet Singh and others, (2002) 10 SCC 673 , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the issue, whether the claim petition can be dismissed for default after framing of issues, held as under: (7) Appreciating the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960 in juxtaposition with the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, I am of the considered opinion that it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to pass an award after settlement of issues and it has no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition for default or refuse to make an award. 7. In Rocky Dev Burman Vs. 7. In Rocky Dev Burman Vs. Lohit Prakash Dutta and Another, (2007) ACJ 1162, the High Court of Gauhati has held as under: (3) It has been the consistent view of this court, as expressed in Nanda Lal Kedia Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, (1984) ACJ 553; Samsul Huda Vs. London and Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 1972 Guw 35; and Akan Chandra Das and Another Vs. Md. Hussain and Another, (2000) 1 GLT 186, that for mere default in appearance of the claimant, a claim application, seeking compensation, made under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the M.V. Act'), cannot be dismissed, for, there is no provision in the M.V. Act and/or the Rules framed there under permitting or empowering the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals to dismiss, for default, an application seeking compensation made under the M.V. Act. However, when a claimant fails to appear, take requisite steps and/or adduced evidence and the Tribunal finds that on the ground of such failure, the claimant has completely failed to prove his/her claim for compensation, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders of no-claim award, i.e., an award to the effect that claimant has failed to prove that the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation. 8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Others, AIR 2003 All 234 , the High Court of Allahabad has held as under: (8) The aforesaid rules show that the Claims Tribunal has to decide the application by holding an inquiry. A claim petition, if it has not been dismissed under rule 206, cannot be dismissed for default. If the claimant does not appear on the date fixed, the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim. If evidence has been led or partly led, it may examine the evidence and make an award. Where evidence has not been led, the Tribunal may decide matter for insufficiency of or for want of evidence, but having proceeded with the matter beyond the stage of rule 206, it cannot dismiss it only on the ground that on the date fixed the claimant or claimants have failed to appear. Where evidence has not been led, the Tribunal may decide matter for insufficiency of or for want of evidence, but having proceeded with the matter beyond the stage of rule 206, it cannot dismiss it only on the ground that on the date fixed the claimant or claimants have failed to appear. xxxx (11) So far as the question whether restoration of restoration application is concerned, the power may be found u/s 151, CPC and is also spelled, out of the provisions of the Act, which provide for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as a special Tribunal for remedies which earlier lay in an action for compensation based on torts. The new forum was created for speedy and simplified remedy, of compensation to accident victims or their dependants and provisions for losses and expenses. New remedies of 'no fault liability' and for 'hit and run' cases were added to meet extraordinary situations for immediate compensation or where the negligent owner or driver of vehicle has not been identified. The claimant or dependant of claimant is often handicapped in pursuing the remedy. It will, therefore, be unjust and unfair where a claim, which is prima facie found to be valid for consideration, be dismissed for default and thereafter the remedy of restoration, or restoration of restoration application be dismissed on technical grounds. Even a police report has to be treated as an application, and that every application filed must be inquired into and decided by the Tribunal. In case no evidence is forthcoming, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim but that it cannot dismiss the claim for default and that where it has been so dismissed, the claim petition may be treated to have been filed on the date when such an application is made as there is no provision of limitation after deletion of sub-section (3) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988). The decision in Nanhi Bai and Others Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others, (1996) ACJ 1153, was under the old Act and is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. The decision in Nanhi Bai and Others Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others, (1996) ACJ 1153, was under the old Act and is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, in the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has already framed issues and appellants-claimants have also examined their one witness and the case was fixed for further evidence on 20.7.2011, therefore, the Claims Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim petition for non-appearance of appellants-claimants. In view of the scheme of the Rules of 1994 and law laid down hereinabove, dismissal of the claim petition is bad in law. 10. Now, I will proceed to consider the dismissal of the application for restoration filed by the appellants-claimants. It is admitted position that appellants-claimants are widow and son of late Sarjuram, who died in the unfortunate accident. They have engaged a lawyer to prosecute their claim case and which they were prosecuting sincerely, as one of their witnesses [SECL employee] where the deceased was working has already been examined, after settlement of issues, the case was fixed for further evidence on 20.7.2011. It is true that the appellants-claimants and their counsel could not appear when the case was called up for hearing and thereafter, they have filed an application for restoration before the Claims Tribunal stating that Mr. N.P. Chandravanshi, their advocate, has wrongly noted the date of hearing in his diary as 20.8.2011 in place of 20.7.2011 and filed the affidavit of Mr. N.P. Chandravanshi, Advocate. The Claims Tribunal rejected the application for restoration stating that no sufficient cause has been shown, without considering the cause shown in its proper perspective particularly keeping in view that Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and the application for restoration was promptly filed along with the affidavit of appellant-claimant's counsel and the appellant-claimant's statement on oath remained un-controverted and thus, sufficient cause was shown for nonappearance on the date of hearing. 11. In Mahendra Rathore Vs. 11. In Mahendra Rathore Vs. Omkar Singh and Others, (2002) 10 SCC 673 , the Supreme Court has held that wherein the applicant before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal produced medical certificate to show for his absence and his statement on oath remained un-controverted, Claims Tribunal ought to have restored the petition to its original status, it was observed that in such matter justice-oriented approach and not a pedantic or technical approach is expected to be adopted. It was held as under: (4) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have recalled the order of dismissal of the claim petition, dated 27.1.1998 and restored the petition to its original status, condoning the delay in moving the application for restoration. The application was supported by a medical certificate showing the applicant having fallen ill on the date of hearing. The applicant's own statement on oath remained un-controverted. In such matters a justice-oriented approach and not a too technical or pedantic approach is expected to be adopted by courts more so when the application sought to be restored for hearing was a claim case arising out of a motor accident. Refusal on the part of Tribunal to restore the claim petition, as also on the part of High Court to show indulgence to the appellant has occasioned failure of justice. The Tribunal could have put the parties to terms to meet the ends of justice but should not have refused to restore the claim petition. We, accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as also of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 27.1.1998. The claim petition is restored to its original number and remanded to the Tribunal for its trial on merits. The proceedings hereafter shall commence from the stage at which the same were on 27.1.1998 when the claim petition was dismissed in default of appearance. The Tribunal shall expeditiously dispose of the petition. 12. The claim petition is restored to its original number and remanded to the Tribunal for its trial on merits. The proceedings hereafter shall commence from the stage at which the same were on 27.1.1998 when the claim petition was dismissed in default of appearance. The Tribunal shall expeditiously dispose of the petition. 12. Thus, regard being had to the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court, in the instant case, the cause shown by the appellants-claimants for non-appearance remained un-controverted, the Claims Tribunal ought to have restored the claim petition to its original file as the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition, after settlement of the issues and thus, the Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in dismissing the claim petition in default and further committed illegality in not restoring the claim petition as sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants-claimants. Resultantly, the order passed by the Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition in default as well as the impugned order dated 30.7.2013 passed in M.J.C. No. 9 of 2012 rejecting the application for restoration of claim case is hereby set aside. Claim Case No. 19 of 2011 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, C.G. (Fulkunwar Bargaah v. Suresh Kumar Sahoo) is restored to its original number. The concerned Claims Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months.