ORDER : 1. The petitioner - original claimant aggrieved by the order below Exhibit I in M.A.C.M.A. No.149 of 2022 (in MACP No.1011 of 2005) dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra as also the judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 in M.A.C.P. No.1011 of 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. 7), Panchmahals at Godhra has filed the present petition. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim submits that at the first instance, the learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the petition and further, in accordance with the decision in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324 , the learned Tribunal had the power to restore the application where it was not even necessary for the claimant to make a specific prayer. It is also submitted that if a specific prayer is made for restoration of the application, the learned Tribunal ought to have restored the matter and therefore, prayer is made to set aside the ex-parte order and award which has been passed. It is further submitted that necessary documents were already produced on record and the same is reflected in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.1011 of 2005 and on that ground, it should have allowed the case on merits rather than dismissing the matter only on the ground that the claimant has not produced the Affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, where specifically in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2010 2 SCC 607 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the Tribunal to call for the information under Form No.54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore, it is submitted that the Affidavit of the claimant was not at all necessary for the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. It is further submitted that the matter was pending since long from the year 2005 and sine die and later the issues were framed and therefore, the claimant nor the claimant’s Advocate could not have any information of the issues being framed nor the Advocate would be in a position to get an idea of the proceedings of the trial Court since no substantial progress was found on record after the institution of the claim petition. 3. In the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra), it has been held as under :- “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. 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. (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 appears 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).” Further, in the above 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. 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.” 4. 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. 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. 5. 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. 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. 6. The learned Tribunal under no circumstances can dismiss the claim petition. For deciding the compensation on merits in case where the claimants fails to appear before the Tribunal concerned even after being instructed by way of notice or the claimant’s Advocate fails to pursue the matter, the learned Tribunal should have called for Form No.54 from the Investigating Officer and should have decided the case on merits while in the present case as per the judgment itself, the relevant documents were placed on record and the learned Tribunal should have decided the compensation amount in accordance with the documentary evidence on record. 7. The claimant had also moved an Application under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and had made a prayer for setting aside the dismissal order and restore the claim petition. The learned Tribunal should have considered the same when the applicant had described in the detail the reasons and tried to justify the case for restoration of the application. 8. In view of the proposition of law in the above judgments, the orders passed in M.A.C.M.A. No.149 of 2022 (in MACP No.1011 of 2005) dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra as also the judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 in M.A.C.P. No.1011 of 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. 7), Panchmahals at Godhra are quashed and set aside. 7), Panchmahals at Godhra are quashed and set aside. The M.A.C.P. No.1011 of 2005 is directed to be restored on concerned File of the learned Tribunal and be dealt in accordance with law. 9. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.