Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1562 (RAJ)

Kundana Ram v. R. S. R. TC, Bhilwara

2023-08-18

MADAN GOPAL VYAS

body2023
ORDER : Madan Gopal Vyas, J. The present civil misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (C) of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Bhilwara in Misc. Case No.18/2012 whereby the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 for setting aside the dismissal order dated 10.11.2010 passed in Claim Case No.524/2005 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that unfortunately, the claim petition of the appellants came to be dismissed in default in absence of the claimants as well as the counsel for the claimants vide order dated 10.11.2010. Thereafter, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC also came to be dismissed as the same has been preferred after delay. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a welfare legislation is promulgated for giving appropriate compensation to the family members of persons who die in motor accidents and therefore, strict compliance of procedure and principles of Civil Procedure Code may not be applied. It is submitted that soon after the information of dismissal of the claim petition, the appellants preferred the application for setting aside the dismissal order, but the learned tribunal rejected the application too, resulting into substantial failure of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-RSRTC submits that there was fault on the part of the appellants-claimants and the learned tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances firstly, rightly dismissed the claim petition in default and secondly, rightly rejected the application as the same was filed after inordinate delay. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the learned tribunal has not committed any illegality and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and looking to the fact that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased Bhanwar Lal who died in motor accident on 2.4.2005, this Court deems it appropriate to restore the proceedings before the learned tribunal. 7. In view of the above, the present civil misc. appeal is allowed. 7. In view of the above, the present civil misc. appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.6.2018 and 10.11.2010 passed by the learned tribunal are quashed and set aside. The Claim Petition No.524/2005 is restored to its original number. The learned tribunal is directed to decide the same on its merits in accordance with law. 8. However, it is made clear that in case, the learned tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimants-appellants are entitled for any amount of compensation, then the learned tribunal shall not grant/allow any interest upon the awarded amount of compensation from 10.11.2010 till the date of passing of this order. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 3.9.2023. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned tribunal either by FAX or by email forthwith.