IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1310 of 2003 BETWEEN Thangallapalli Ramesh. ... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. A. PADMA The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, who is claimant in O.P.No.79 of 1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, complains in this revision petition that the tribunal by order dated 03.07.2002 instead of dismissing I.A.No.257 of 2000, ought to have condoned the delay in filing the restoration petition by the petitioner. 2. OP was filed by the petitioner for compensation towards injuries suffered in the motor accident caused on account of collusion of the APSRTC bus and lorry and the said OP was coming up for evidence. On 15.03.1999, the date fixed for evidence of P.W.1 by the tribunal below, the petitioner failed to attend on that day and as there was no representation, the OP was dismissed in default. In order to set aside the said dismissal, the petitioner filed an application for restoration along with I.A.No.257 of 2000 to condone the delay of 281 days in presenting the petition. In the said application, the petitioner had stated reasons for his absence on 15.03.1999, which was not accepted by the tribunal below. Hence, this revision petition. 3. This revision petition was dismissed against respondents 1 and 5 for non-compliance of the Court order dated 11.03.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents 2 to 4 and 6 though served, except appearance on behalf of the sixth respondent through learned counsel, there is no appearance on behalf of other respondents. 4. The affidavit filed by the petitioner states that his counsel had informed him of the date of hearing but the said communication could not reach on account of his change of address. He also states that he could not communicate the change of address to his counsel and in the process, there was non-appearance by him on 15.03.1999 resulting in dismissal of OP in default. 5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the sixth respondent/insurance company only shows a general denial and in the absence of any counter by other respondents, I am unable to see any justification for the tribunal below to render the just explanation as not sufficient. The petitioner, who is claimant and who seeks compensation for the injuries suffered, cannot be presumed to be negligent when he states that his counsel informed him of the date but the communication did not reach him. He has also very forthrightly mentioned that change of address was not communicated to his counsel. 6. There is no reason to disbelieve the same in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to advance substantial cause of justice, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and restore the OP on the file of the tribunal below for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. However, the default on the part of the petitioner cannot be a premium for awarding interest for the said period and as such, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on the compensation, if any, if awarded by the tribunal below for the period from 15.04.1999 till today. The said condition shall be noted by the by the tribunal below while disposing of OP.No.79 of 1996. OP was dismissed against all the respondents and this revision petition succeeds only against respondents 2 to 4 and 6, as such, the dismissal order passed by the tribunal against respondents 1 and 5 cannot be disturbed. OP already dismissed against respondents 1 and 5, therefore, shall stand undisturbed and shall be tried and disposed of by the tribunal below only as against respondents 2 to 4 and 6. The civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 1, 2011 DSK