ORDER : 1. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the MACP came to be dismissed citing the provision of Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 observing that the petition was admitted on 30.7.2009 and that MLC certificate has not been produced and when the matter was called out, the applicant as well as the advocate failed to remain present and hence, observing so, the petition was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional MACT (Aux), Godhra in MACP No. 1086/09. The stage for considering the provision of Rule 211 would be at the institution of the claim petition and in absence of any medical certificate of injuries, the claim petition came to be admitted in the file and numbered in the register, then after a long delay, the dismissal ought not to have been under Rule 211 which in this case the dismissal order is of 10.11.2017 almost after 8 years. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the case was of motor accident and certainly the criminal case would have been registered against the driver and thus, stated that the MLC certificate could have been procured under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which could have given the information regarding the hospital in which the injured was admitted and necessary MLC report could have been called for. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal was required to grant an opportunity to the claimant by framing the issues and then could have asked for production of the MLC where in the present matter, Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal had not even framed any issue for the trial. The Tribunal was required to follow the provision of Section 158(6) of the MV Act. 2. Mr. Bhalodi further stated that the restoration application was filed which was with a delay of 1907 days but the delay condonation application being MACMA No. 322 of 2023 was dismissed. 3. Perusal of the order dated 10.11.2017 does not clarify as to when the issues were framed by the Tribunal. It was only on transfer, the matter had come before the concerned Tribunal and on the ground of non-production of MLC certificate, the claim petition was dismissed. 3. Perusal of the order dated 10.11.2017 does not clarify as to when the issues were framed by the Tribunal. It was only on transfer, the matter had come before the concerned Tribunal and on the ground of non-production of MLC certificate, the claim petition was dismissed. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules grants opportunity to the applicant to satisfy the claims Tribunal about the good or sufficient cause which prevented him from filing such documents and if the claims Tribunal finds it satisfactory, then the Tribunal can allow the claimant to rely upon such document thereafter in support of his claim petition. 4. Here in this case, the matter was admitted in the year 2009. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 211 requires reproduction herein to note as to what are the documents which would be necessary to be appended at the time of institution of application for compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the MV Act. 5. Sub-Rule (5) is reproduced hereunder: “(5) There shall be appended to every such application, the following documents namely: (i) First Information Report in respect of the accident. (ii) Medical certificate of injuries or Postmortem Report, or death certificate. (iii) a certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of vehicle involved in the accident from the Regional Transport Officer or the Police Station, concerned.” 6. At the time of institution of the claim petition, the Tribunal through the registry would have verified about the documents appended along with the claim petition. If without any objection, the claim petition was admitted, then it could be assumed that the Tribunal has permitted him to rely upon such document later on during the trial. Here in this case, the Tribunal by passing the order of dismissal on 10.11.2017 had been in haste of disposing the matter which had been pending for almost more than 8 years. The Tribunal was required to appreciate the fact that when the petition came to be admitted, no such objections were raised regarding the MLC certificate and later on after 8 years, the dismissal of the petition has been ordered without any opportunity to the claimant for producing the document on record. The Tribunal was required to appreciate the fact that when the petition came to be admitted, no such objections were raised regarding the MLC certificate and later on after 8 years, the dismissal of the petition has been ordered without any opportunity to the claimant for producing the document on record. After institution of the petition and being registered, the first opportunity which the claimant would get in filing the documents would be after framing of the issues and once the petition has been allowed to be admitted without MLC certificate, then it goes without saying that the applicant may have satisfied the claims Tribunal by explaining the cause which prevented him from filing such MLC. Under Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, the application for compensation would be in Form Comp. A and on verification, if the petition is admitted and registered, then the only vigilance which is required to be adopted by the litigant is to wait for the court to frame the issues. The matter generally thereafter would come on board. The impugned order dated 10.11.2017 passed in MACP no. 1086/09 does not suggest that the matter was placed before the Tribunal in the regular board, rather the order suggests that it was in the transfer list which was placed on the notice board. 7. The dismissal of the matter was not known to the claimant nor to his advocate as the Court has not observed in the order as to whether after the transfer of the matter to the concerned Tribunal any notice was issued to the claimant or his advocate informing them about the transfer. The petition was not even decided on merits and the Tribunal had ordered for recovery of the court fees. 8. The delay on the part of the court to frame the issues and failure to keep the matter ready for trial has not been taken into consideration by the concerned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. 9. In the decision in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others vs. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, 2011 (2) GLR 1324 , it has been held that the matters under the MV Act being a benevolent legislation has to be decided on merits. 9. In the decision in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others vs. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, 2011 (2) GLR 1324 , it has been held that the matters under the MV Act being a benevolent legislation has to be decided on merits. If the claimants failed to produce the documentary evidence, the Tribunal can decide as per the provision of Section 166(4) of the Act by following the provision of sub-section (6) of Section 158. Unfortunately the claimants do not have any say in the proceedings and processes of the Court as the Tribunal itself failed to follow the mandates as provided under the law. 10. The prayer was made to restore the claim petition by condoning the delay of 1907 days. 11. It is necessary to reproduce relevant part of the decision in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra) which is 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. 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 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).” 12. The Tribunal was required to condone the delay and restore the claim petition on file and was required to hear the matter on merits. The dismissal of the claim petition itself is bad in law. The dismissal order also suggests that the insurance company has not been heard. In such scenario, it should now be the duty of the insurance company to convey the court to frame the issues as expeditiously as possible so that pendency of the matters would not overburden the insurance company by paying the interest on the compensation amount as the claim petitions are not made ready for the trial as the Tribunal fails to frame the issues at the earliest. 13. 13. Having observed that the order dated 10.11.2017 dismissing the claim petition is bad in law, the order stands quashed and set aside. The order passed in MACMA No. 322 of 2023 dated 10.4.2023 is also quashed and set aside. The delay stands condoned and MACP no. 1086/09 is ordered to be restored on the file of the concerned court with a direction that the issues be framed in the matter at the earliest and sufficient opportunity be provided to the parties to produce the documents which they proposes to rely upon in support of their claim and opportunity be granted to the insurance company to defend the matter. Accordingly, the Special Civil Application is allowed.