1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. G.V.Wani , Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. A.B.Gatne, Counsel for Respondent No. 3. ........................ [ CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. ] DATE :20th AUGUST,2009 1. Heard Mr. G.V.Wani , Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. A.B.Gatne, Counsel for Respondent No. 3. Respondent no. 2 though served, no one appeared on his behalf when the matter is called out for admission and hearing. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners states that respondent nos. 4 & 5 are legal heirs of deceased as explained in paragraph 11 of claim petition No. 348 of 2003. Respondent no. 1 is a driver. 2 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the Order dated 14/8/2008 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T., Dhule. Petitioners/claimants filed Claim Petition No. 348 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 46,00,000/-. Said claim petition was dismissed for default on 26/11/2007. Thereafter, petitioners preferred M.A. No. 12 of 2008 on 24/12/2007 for recalling the Order dated 26/11/2007 and for restoration of claim petition. In the said application, petitioners stated that on 26/11/2007, petitioner no. 1 received message that her daughter was seriously ill and, therefore, she immediately went at her in-laws place and could not remain present in the Court on that day. An application for adjournment is preferred. However, the Tribunal was pleased to reject the same and dismissed the petition for default. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners state that because of above reason, it was difficult for her to remain present on 26/11/2007. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the dismissal order dated 26/11/2007 may be recalled and matter be decided on merits. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 opposed Writ Petition on the ground that petitioner remained absent on several occasions. Not only that, on 22/1/2007 till 23/8/2007, the claim petition was adjourned at the instance of petitioner. Considering these facts, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 opposed the Writ Petition. 5. I have gone through the application dated 24/12/2007 filed by petitioners for restoration of claim petition as well as impugned order dated 14/10/2008. The reasons disclosed by the petitioners in their petition dated 24/12/2007 that on 26/11/2007, they received message that their daughter was seriously ill and, therefore, they left immediately to her in-laws and could not remain present before the Court on that day, can be accepted for restoration of main petition. Not only that, the petitioners filed their affidavit dated 4/8/2009 and 17/8/2009 stating that in case they succeed in their claim petition, they will not claim interest on the compensation from 22/1/2007 till the date of restoration of claim petition. Considering the undertaking given by 4 petitioners, by filing their affidavit dated 4/8/2009 and 17/8/2009 and considering the reasons disclosed by petitioners in their application dated 24/12/2007, the impugned order passed by M.A.C.T., Dhule dated 14/10/2008 is set aside. The order dated 26/11/2007 passed by the Tribunal dismissing claim petition No. 348 of 2003 in default is set aside. Application dated 24/12/2007 filed by petitioner is allowed on the ground that petitioner will not claim any interest on compensation, if awarded in their favour from 22/1/2007 till today i.e. 20/8/2009. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J. ] knp/WP1493.09