ORDER : 1. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the claimants are before this court, since M.A.C.P. No.119 of 2011, came to be dismissed for default by the learned Tribunal and though restoration application was moved, the same was also rejected without even considering record of the matter. 2. Mr. Bhalodi submits that, when the matter remained sine die, on 21.06.2017, issues were framed and thereafter the first adjournment date was 28.07.2017 and on the very next adjournment, the matter came to be dismissed for default. 3. Relying on the judgment of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324 , it has been held that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss the Claim Petition for default taking into consideration the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e. to provide adequate compensation to the claimants. The relevant part of the above decision is reproduced herein below:- “A District Judge, who functions as a Claims Tribunal, is not only within the administrative control of the High Court, but also subordinate to it under Section 115 of the Code. A Claims Tribunal is a ‘Court’ although with limited jurisdiction and not a mere ‘Tribunal’. The powers of appeal given to the High Court under the Act against the decision of the Tribunal constituted under the Act, will definitely lead to conclusion that the said Tribunal is subordinate to the High Court and the nomenclature given to the Motor Vehicles Tribunal that, it is a Tribunal, will not take it out of the purview of the Civil Court. (Para 5) Under Rule 3, therefore, even if, neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing, it is not compulsory for the Court to dismiss the suit. The Court may adjourn the suit. In the event of dismissal of the suit, it is open to the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the suit and the Court may set aside the order of dismissal and restore the suit. An order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties is not a “decree” under Sec. 2(2), and hence, is not appealable. An order of dismissal of a suit based on erroneous application of Rule 3 can be said to be a “case decided” within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Code. An order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties is not a “decree” under Sec. 2(2), and hence, is not appealable. An order of dismissal of a suit based on erroneous application of Rule 3 can be said to be a “case decided” within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Code. Hence, where the Court has acted with illegality or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, a revision would like against such an order. (Para 5.7) The provisions of the Code are applicable to govern the procedure in a Motor Accident Claim case as provided under Rule 229 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. There is no separate procedural law, made applicable to conduct the Motor Accident Claim petitions. Therefore, application for restoration, made under Order 9, Rule 4, in the instant case, is absolute, legal and sustainable, and therefore, the revision, arisen out of such order, passed below such application, is also undoubtedly maintainable. (Para 5.11)” On perusal of the application and other relevant papers, it appears that the restoration application was filed by the applicants on 22nd November, 2001 and another restoration application is filed on 28th January, 2004, under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code, wherein, the applicants have described the reasons and tried to justify their case for restoration of the application. On perusal of the papers, it apperas that the applicants are poor persons and coming from the lower strata of the society as they belong to Tribal community. Therefore, instead of entering into the technicalities and with a view to do the substantial justice, the Court below was required to adopt lenient view. (Para 6).” 4. Mr. Bhalodi submits that no claim petition can be dismissed for default without deciding the matter on merits, and further stated that the restoration application was filed and the learned Tribunal was required to restore the matter. 5. Perusal of certified copy of Rojnama, referred by learned advocate for the petitioners, suggests that on 21.06.2017, issues were framed at Exhibit-24 and on 28.07.2017 adjournment application was moved, which was granted and the matter was listed on 15.09.2017. On that day too, the application for adjournment was preferred on the ground that the applicant’s son was not keeping well and thus for his treatment the claimant was out of station, hence, could not be in a position to adduce the evidence. On that day too, the application for adjournment was preferred on the ground that the applicant’s son was not keeping well and thus for his treatment the claimant was out of station, hence, could not be in a position to adduce the evidence. The learned Tribunal rejected the application and on that very day, dismissed the petition for default. 6. In the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra), it has been held in Paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14 as under :- “5.13. The object of the Act, which is a benevolent provision or social welfare legislation under which, compensation is paid, has to be considered liberally and the intention of the Legislature enacting such provisions to achieve the said object, has to be considered. While interpretation of the provisions of social welfare legislation, the Courts should adopt an approach in such a manner, that in any event, it fulfills the policy of the legislation. The interpretation to be adopted, should be more beneficial to a person in whose favour and in whose interest the Act has been passed. While dealing with application under the Act, the interpretation has to be for the benefit of the poor victims. It is, therefore, necessary to take a constructive and positive attitude in interpreting the provisions of these types and determine the main aim or object of a particular Act in question for adjudication before the Court. 5.14. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder also do not empower the Claims Tribunal to dispose an application merely for default of the applicant without arriving at findings on merits of the case, after the stage of framing issues. In the instant case, issues were framed, and thereafter, the learned Tribunal was required to decide the case on merits with a view to provide substantial justice, instead of entering into the technicalities.” 6.1 In the case of Sunil Shivran @ Sevaram Rabari v. Nirmalsing Triloksing & Others reported in 2019 (1) G.L.R. 694 , it has been held that the claim petition cannot be dismissed for default. It is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation based on material available on record. The Tribunal has to call for relevant information in Form No.56 from the Investigating Agency. The law permits to record evidence by affidavit. It is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation based on material available on record. The Tribunal has to call for relevant information in Form No.56 from the Investigating Agency. The law permits to record evidence by affidavit. When the claim petition gives details of claim, nature of accident, the Tribunal is required to award just compensation and further, no matter can be disposed of without doing justice. 6.2 In the case of Joshi Rajendrakumar Popatlal v. Thakor Ramnaji Hamirji and Others reported in 2019 (2) G.L.R. 1508 , it has been held that the Tribunal cannot dismiss claim petition on the ground that the claimant has not produced driving license, R.C. Book or Insurance policy of vehicle involved in accident. The Tribunal is required to call for such information from the Investigating Agency. It is mandatory for the Investigating Agency to collect such information and forward it to the Tribunal in Accident Information Report in Form 54 under Rule 150 within 30 days. The Tribunal is required to treat the said report as application for compensation and award just and reasonable compensation to the claimant without waiting for filing of claim petition. The Court disapproved the conduct of the Tribunal in not calling for said information from the Investigating Agency and the order of the Tribunal was quashed and set aside. It was also held that the claimant may disclose the said information only if he is aware. The disclosure in the claim petition by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is sufficient. The owner and driver though served with summons did not appear, the insurance company appeared but did not file a written statement. It was also held that there was no reason for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition but the Tribunal is required to call for Accident Information Report in Form 54 from the Investigating Officer. 7. Taking into consideration the reasons given hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the object of benevolent act. The learned Tribunal is always require to decide the claim petition on merits, if at all, after giving a reasonable time, the claimant himself would not be in a position to adduce evidence, then the learned Tribunal ought to have called for Form No.54 from the police for verifying the facts and should have granted the compensation amount accordingly. 8. The learned Tribunal is always require to decide the claim petition on merits, if at all, after giving a reasonable time, the claimant himself would not be in a position to adduce evidence, then the learned Tribunal ought to have called for Form No.54 from the police for verifying the facts and should have granted the compensation amount accordingly. 8. Here, in the present matter, on both the adjournments, the claimant had shown reasonable grounds for not being in a position to adduce the evidence, the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the object of the benevolent legislation ought to have granted the adjournment rather than dismissing the petition. 9. Hence, in view of the above reasons, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 15.09.2017 in M.A.C.P. No.119 of 2011 is quashed and set aside and the matter is ordered to be restored in the file of the concerned Tribunal with direction that opportunity be granted to all the concerned parties on record for adducing the evidence and decide the matter in accordance with law.