THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.4783 OF 2002 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.871/2001 in I.A.No.351/2001 in O.P.No.1141/1998 in dismissing the O.P. for non-compliance of the conditional order , the claimant filed the present revision. 2. The petitioner filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The said petition was dismissed for default and subsequently for restoring the O.P., the claimant filed I.A.No.351.2000 and it was allowed on 19.4.2001 subject to payment of costs of Rs.100/- on or before 6.6.2001. As the costs were not paid, the OP stood dismissed. For setting aside the said dismissal order, the claimant filed the present I.A.No.871/2001 stating that he wrongly noted the date of hearing as 8.6.2001 and hence he could not pay the costs and, therefore, sought to set aside the dismissal order. The court below disbelieving the said averment, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 3. It is to be noticed that the claimant sustained injuries and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and on technical grounds, the benefit envisaged under the Act cannot be denied to the legitimate claimants. A learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in SARAMMASCARIA v. MATHAI[1], referring to relevant provisions under the statute, held as under: “8. The State has got a duty, so also the Tribunal, to save the victims from the suffering caused by the accident as well as the suffering of the family members who are under considerable financial and psychological pressures. Once it is found that an application cannot be summarily rejected and there are sufficient grounds for proceedings therewith and framed the issues, the Claims Tribunal is bound to decide the issues whether there was appearance or not on behalf of the claimants or injured as the case may be and the opposite parties. It is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to obtain necessary information from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to settle the claims, whether the parties, who were given notice appeared or not. 9. Tribunal has got a paramount duty to render justice to hapless victims of road accident as well as the claimants of the deceased. Procedures have been laid down under the Act and Rules to award immediate compensation. Claim under Section 140 would be met immediately whether claimants appeared or not. The injured or the claimants of the deceased due to various reasons might be suffering either from the injury or might not have overcome the tragedy befallen on them. Tribunal should show human compassion and sympathy in such situations and not to set them ex parte and leave them in the lurch. Further in cases where parties have engaged an advocate that applications should not be dismissed due to non-appearance of the counsel. The Tribunal should still decide the issues on the basis of the records available with them. Tribunal should remember that the statute has permitted the applicant to make an application in person or by an agent duly empowered by the person injured or through legal practitioner. Section 166(4) has directed the Tribunal also to treat the report forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation.” 4. In the present case, the claimant alleged that as he noted the date wrongly, he could not comply with the conditional order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the I.A. and proceeded with the case. The approach of the Tribunal, in the light of the object of the legislation, cannot be appreciated and in view of the circumstances and having regard to the judgment of the Kerala High Court, I am of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the O.P. be restored to file. 5. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the O.P. is restored to file. The Tribunal shall disposed of the O.P. on merits considering all the claims, including the appropriate interest, which the claimant is entitled to as per law and dispose of the O.P. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS -------------------------- ---- 18—12— 2009 [1] 2003 ACJ 213