Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 10 (CHH)

SONKALI GIRI (GOSWAMI) v. TAIGUN B

2014-01-15

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioners/claimants are the unfortunate parents of Ratan Giri @ Akshay Giri, who died in a road accident on 25.4.2007. A claim case was filed by the petitioners on 4.2.2008 and on most of the dates they were duly represented through their counsel. However, on 3.12.2010 the said claim case was dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. On 15.12.2010 the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of their claim case. This application was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 11.9.2013 holding that dismissal of the claim case on 3.12.2010 was proper. Against the order dated 11.9.2013 the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal No.91/13 before this Court, which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the counsel engaged by the claimants were under the impression that on 3.12.2010 issues would be framed and because of that he did not appear before the Court and at about 4 pm when he reached the Court to note down the next date of hearing, he came to know about dismissal of the claim case. He submits that even otherwise the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are benevolent provisions and the Courts should take a liberal view in at least restoration of such cases. He also submits that if the claim case of the petitioners is not restored, they would suffer an irreparable loss. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 5. Without commenting anything in relation to order dated 3.12.2010 and considering the fact that absence of the claimants before the Court below was bona fide and caused on account of sufficient reasons assigned by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has taken a most stringent approach while rejecting the application of the claimants. This apart, it is worth mentioning that the claimants have lost their young son aged about 20 years and this itself has caused an undue harassment to them and in such a situation the Court below should have been more sympathetic and considerate while considering their application. This apart, it is worth mentioning that the claimants have lost their young son aged about 20 years and this itself has caused an undue harassment to them and in such a situation the Court below should have been more sympathetic and considerate while considering their application. Furthermore, the Court below while rejecting the application of the claimants should not have been oblivious of the fact that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent provisions and if such a harsh attitude is adopted by it then the very purpose of the Act itself would be defeated. 6. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, according to the considered opinion of this Court the order impugned does not have legs to stand and therefore, the same is set aside. Petition is thus allowed. The claim case which has been dismissed by the Court below is directed to be restored to its original number. The petitioners to remain present before the Court below on 6th February, 2014 and ensure speedy disposal of the case. Needless to say that the Court below shall make all endeavour to ensure disposal of the case in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. Petition Allowed.