IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6697/2008 Somvir Singh Vs. Addl. District Judge (F.T.) No.1 & Ors. 10.9.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Rajneesh Gupta, for the petitioner. Shri Mahipal Meena, for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is owner of the Motor Vehicle which met with an accident resulting in death of one Bhairon Singh on account of which claim under Motor Vehicle Act 1988 came to be filed which was being heard by the Additional District Judge (FT) No.1, Dholpur in exercise of the powers as a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Vide order dated 21.11.1996 passed by the learned Tribunal, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed on account of which the present petitioner was impleaded as party to the claim petition and the Insurance Company was deleted from the array of parties. Against the order dated 21.11.1996, the present petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition No.118/1997 [Somvir Singh Vs. Mahaveer Prasad and Others] before this court in which an interim order was passed staying the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. On account of the said stay order passed by this court and the proceedings having been stayed, the dates were fixed but no proceedings were taken before the learned Tribunal. This court vide order dated 13.08.2003 dismissed the revision petition and as a result thereof the stay order passed by this court was vacated. On account of the dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 13.08.2003 on 16.11.2004 the attention of the learned Tribunal was drawn by one of the parties to the effect that neither the petitioner nor the claimants are present and this Hon'ble Court has also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.08.2003 and as a result of the order dated 16.11.2004, the interim order has been vacated. The learned Tribunal vide Annexure-2 dated 16.11.2004 having found that neither the claimants nor their counsel is present and that the order of stay of the proceedings has been vacated, dismissed the claim petition for non- prosecution. The claimants who are non- petitioners herein thereafter filed an application Annexure-3 on record under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for recalling the order dated 16.11.2004 and restoring the claim petition to its original number. The case of the claimants was that neither they had the knowledge about the dismissal of the revision petition nor they had been informed by their counsel about the dismissal of the revision petition and on account of the fact that the proceedings before the learned Tribunal had remained stayed since the year 1997 till the matter was taken up on 16.11.2004, the claimants were under the impression that on account of the stay order passed by this court in the revision petition, filed by the present petitioner no proceedings would take place before the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the claimants did not appear when the case was called on 16.11.2004 and in their absence the claim petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It is submitted that as per the averments made in para 4 of the application (Annexure-3) that the claimants came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition on 16.11.2004 only on 13.06.2007 when the claimant Shyam Singh contacted his counsel to find out about the proceedings in the claim petition. After contacting the counsel, the claimant Shyam Singh came to know that the claim petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2004 for non-prosecution. Thereafter he applied for the certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2004 on 13.06.2007 and filed the application (Annexure-3) soon thereafter along with an affidavit of Shyam Singh reiterating the above facts in support of the said application. The reply was filed by the present petitioner to the said application objecting to the said application being allowed on the ground of delay. However, in the reply to the application, there was no denial to the facts as stated in para 4 of the application that the claimants came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition vide order dated 16.11.2004 only on 13.06.2007. However, it was submitted that there being no application filed for condonation of delay, the application (Annexure-3) deserves to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties has allowed the application filed by the claimants vide order dated 28.06.2008 on the cost of Rs.1100/-. It is against the aforesaid order (Annexure-5) dated 28.06.2008 that the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that vide interim order passed by this court the proceedings before the learned Tribunal remained stayed for over seven years till the matter was taken up by the learned Tribunal on 16.11.2004. There is no denial of the fact that as mentioned in the application by the claimants that they did not receive any information from their counsel regarding dismissal of the revision petition. Even the Tribunal did not receive any intimation from the registry of this court regarding the dismissal of the revision petition and the vacation of the stay order passed by this court by which the proceedings were stayed till such time, one of the parties brought it to the notice of the court on 16.11.2004 that the revision petition had been dismissed and the interim order of stay of proceedings has been vacated on 13.8.2003 i.e. nearly a year earlier. It can not be doubted that on account of such a long pendency of the revision petition, the said order staying the proceedings, the claimants or their counsel in the absence of the information from this court or from the respective counsels regarding dismissal of the revision petition and the claimants could not knew of the fact that the revision petition had been dismissed by this court on 13.8.2003 and hence the counsel and the claimants were not present on 16.11.2004. The Tribunal could have issued the notice to the claimants in the interest of justice. Be that as it may the facts as stated in the para 4 of the application submitted by the claimants, duly supported by an affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner and hence ought to be accepted. The learned Tribunal therefore committed no error of jurisdiction by exercising its discretion in favour of the claimants as the law relating to motor accident claims is social legislation. In that view of the matter there is no denial to the facts on record that claimants came to know about dismissal of the claim petition only on 13.6.2007 and moved an application within reasonable time on 6.7.2007 after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2004. The learned Tribunal has while allowing the application vide impugned order Annexure-5 dated 28.6.2008 has compensated the petitioner; on account of delay in filing of the application, with cost of Rs.1100/-which has been deposited by the claimants. In the facts and circumstances more particularly that the claim petition has been filed by the claims on account of death in the bread earner of the family in a motor accident. The provisions in this behalf are in the nature of social security measure for social justice and in the form of benevolent measures. The interpretation of these provisions and the attitude of the courts while dealing with such like cases or applications must be one for securing justice for the claimants rather than to deny them the benefit. Once the court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for not appearing on the date fixed and also that the claimants came to know of the order dismissing the claim only on 13.6.2007 and hence filed the application on 6.7.2007, the mere fact that no separate prayer for condonation of delay was made by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 would not come in the way of doing substantial justice as all that is required to be seen is whether there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the application which has been determined while deciding the application under order 9 rule 9 C.P.C. I am therefore of the view that impugned order calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS