1 wp 5237.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5237 OF 2009 1. Shri Gatlu Rajdhar Patil, Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Mangalmurti Housing Society, Plot No. 42, Deopur, Dhule. 2. Sau. Nirmala Gatlu Patil, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Mangalmurti Housing Society, Plot No. 42, Deopur, Dhule. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Deluxe Cargo Motors (Indore) (Owner), 804, Jagurti Nagar, Loha Mandi, Indore, (M.P.). 2. Mohamad Usuf Babakhan, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Driver, R/o Palan Naka, Ansari Colony, Indore (M.P.). 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Notice to be served on Branch Manager, Dhule. .. .. Respondents Shri Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served. 2 wp 5237.09 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners have filed petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation U/Sec. 166 of the said Act. The claim U/Sec. 140 was decided. Thereafter the matter was sent to the sine die list. The matter was thereafter dismissed as the petitioners remained absent. The present petitioners filed an application for restoration along with an application for condonation of delay of 139 days in filing the restoration application. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 3. Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel holding for Shri N. L. Choudhari, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the matter was posted to sine die list and thereafter no notice was given to petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners could not remain present as they did not know the progress of the matter. The Court should have taken liberal approach and should have 3 wp 5237.09 condoned the delay. 4. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the petition and states that there is lack of total diligence on the part of the petitioners. They remained absent for four years continuously and so even if liberal interpretation is given to sufficient cause, the petitioners' case cannot be considered for condonation of delay. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment. The proceedings U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are a part of social welfare legislation. The expression sufficient cause will have to be liberally construed. Even the statute does not provide for any limitation period for filing the claim for compensation U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered the application liberally. No doubt, the petitioners were absent for long time. It is also fact that the matter was sent to sine die list and thereafter the petitioners have withdraw the amount. When the statute itself does not provide for a period of limitation for filing the claim petition, the Court is required to consider the application for restoration and delay caused therein more liberally. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the writ 4 wp 5237.09 petition. 6. In the result the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 is quashed and set aside and the M. C. A. No. 28/2008 filed by the present petitioners is allowed. The rule is accordingly made absolute, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11