ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In view of the short point involved, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at this stage itself. 4. In these appeals, the appellants/claimants have challenged the order dated 02.04.2018 in FAFO No.381 of 2016, whereby the High Court dismissed their appeal for want of prosecution and the order dated 20.02.2019, whereby the High Court declined the applications for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellants herein had filed a claim application seeking compensation on account of loss suffered by them due to the demise of their bread-earner in a vehicular accident that occurred on 11.02.1993. The deceased was said to be working in Irrigation Department as Munshi. The appellants/claimants are children and wife of the deceased. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants had not been able to establish the facts regarding involvement of the vehicle of respondents in the accident in question and, therefore, dismissed the claim application by its judgment and order dated 20.08.2002. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants preferred the said appeal bearing No.381 of 2016 in the High Court. However, it appears that there had been too much of laxity on the part of the counsel instructed on behalf of the appellants as noticed from the repeated orders of adjournments, as reproduced in the order impugned, ranging from 18.05.2016 to 21.02.2018. Ultimately, on 02.04.2018, when nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants, the High Court was convinced that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting the appeal and hence, dismissed it for want of prosecution. 7. Thereafter, the appellants filed belatedly an application for restoration of the appeal as also for condonation of delay. The High Court, however, found no cogent reason to condone the delay in filing the application as also to restore the appeal for consideration and hence, dismissed the same by its order dated 20.02.2019. 8. Seeking to challenge the orders as aforesaid, it has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellants Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi that the appellants, who lost their sole bread-earner in the vehicular accident, had been in a serious distressful condition and there was no reason for them not to prosecute the appeal. 8. Seeking to challenge the orders as aforesaid, it has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellants Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi that the appellants, who lost their sole bread-earner in the vehicular accident, had been in a serious distressful condition and there was no reason for them not to prosecute the appeal. However, the appeal being in the High Court and their regular appearance being not requisite, they could only rely upon the persons instructed to conduct the case on their behalf. It is submitted that, of course, there have been some laxity in prosecuting the case but, penalisation of appellants by way of default dismissal would not serve the cause of justice and the appellants would be left with no scope of any relief at any stage. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Garima Prasad ably assisted by Ms. Kanishka Mittal has argued that the appellants had not been able to establish the involvement of the vehicle of the respondents in the accident in question and then, there had been no justification in not attending the appeal when called out before the High Court and in not filing restoration application within reasonable time. 10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that even when prosecution of the appeal on behalf of the appellants had been wanting in punctual attendance before the High Court, it is also noticed that at least four times adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellants on the ground of illness of their counsel. That being the position, merely for the counsel having not attended the matter, the default dismissal of appeal by the High Court, particularly looking to its subject-matter i.e., claim for compensation, cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the High Court appears to have taken too stern a view of the matter while declining the application for condonation of delay and for restoration. 11. In our view, the interest of justice would be served if the appeal is restored for consideration before the High Court on its own merits. 12. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeal bearing FAFO No.381 of 2016 is restored for reconsideration before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeal bearing FAFO No.381 of 2016 is restored for reconsideration before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in accordance with law. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the High Court on 06.01.2023. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of.