1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8086 /2010 1] Baba Namdar Shaikh Age 57 years, Occ-Agriculture 2] Mumtazbee Baba Shaikh Age 47 years, Occ-Household Both R/o Ghodegaon,Tq.Jamkhed Dist.Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1] Ramesh Laxman Awasare Age Major, Occ-Business R/o Khed Shivapur, Ta. Haveli, Dist.Pune 2] Peer Mohammed Khan Age Major Occ-Business R/o Gala No.213, Mahatre Compound Bhivandi, Dist.Thane. 3] The New India Assurance Com.Ltd Abbot Building, Zendigate, Ahmednagar. 4] Salma Anis Shaikh Age 23 years, Occ-Household 2 R/o Bhodegaon, Tq. Jamkhed Dist.Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Nitin V. Gaware,Advocate for petitioners. .... CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J. DATE : 6/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2] As the claim petition tendered by petitioner has been rejected by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar before registering the same and / or prior to its admission, it is not necessary to direct issuance of notices to other side. Petition can be disposed of at admission stage. 3] After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner-original claimant and the facts of the case presented by the petitioner in M.A.C.P. under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act it transpires 3 that prior to its registration, office of the Tribunal raised objection in respect of failure of tendering of the copy of post mortem report or death certificate in view of Rule 255-A(iii) of the Motor Vehicle Rule alongwith claim petition. The objection raised was brought to the notice of the advocate who presented the claim petition on behalf of petitioner. It further transpires that the learned District Judge and the Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar is pleased to dispose of the petition on account of alleged failure of the claimants to comply with the office objection in view of order passed on 23rd/25 th June 2009. 4] The petitioners presented an application to the Court and brought to its notice that in fact the objection has already been complied with and there was no occasion for dismissing the claim petition on account of failure to remove office objections. The learned Member of M.A.C.T. however, has turned down the application holding that the same is not in the nature of restoration application and that the delay in tendering application has not been properly explained by presenting a separate application. One of the reasons recorded for non-consideration of the application is that the application is not supported by affidavit of the claimants. 4 5] I have perused the impugned order passed by M.A.C.T. It appears that the Tribunal has adopted hyper technical view of the matter. The counsel for claimants has brought to my notice that at the time of presentation of claim petition itself, the copy of the death certificate issued by the Municipal Council, Indapur, was placed on record. It also transpired on perusal of list of documents that the claimants have placed on record copy of the inquest panchanama and the panchanama of scene of offence. The presentation of these two documents ought to have been considered as sufficient compliance of the requirements of the Rules. It also transpires that the copy of the post mortem report is also tendered alongwith claim petition at the time of its presentation on 19/8/2009. In view of presentation of the documents referred above, the objection raised by office in fact does not survive. The Tribunal however, has passed an order refusing to register the claim petition and further refusing to set aside its earlier order without application of mind and without taking into consideration the record of the case. Even otherwise, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to insist upon strict compliance of Sub rule 1 of Rule 255 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment in the case of Narayan Kothiramji Bawane V/s Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, reported in 2005 (1) All M.R. 59. This Court while dealing with the claim petition under Section 166 5 of the Act, has adopted a view that the provisions of Sub rule 1 of Rule 255 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, are directory in nature and it cannot be construed to have mandatory force, in order to expel the applicant from the forum. 6] In view of the reasons recorded above, the order passed by M.A.C.T. and District Judge, Ahmednagar on 9/9/2009 as well as 23/25-6-2009 stand quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to register the Claim Petition and proceed further in accordance with provisions of law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.M.BORDE,J] umg/wp8086-10