:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1807 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.1807 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.1807 OF 2008 Shri Mansaram Baburao Mahajan & Anr. ...Appellants. v. The Union of India ...Respondent. Mr.Ashok Varma , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.Pandian , adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. It appears that son of the appellants died and they have filed Original Application No.2004-266 for compensation. It appears that neither the appellants nor the counsel appeared on 14-12-2005 and the matter was dismissed in default. That order was set aside when the matter was restored on 14-6-2006. Again on 29-8-2006 none was present for the appellants and, therefore, application was dismissed in default on 29-8-2006. After that Miscellaneous Application No.80 of 2006 was filed for restoration of the original application on the ground that the applicant was ill and his counsel could not attend due to some difficulty. :2: The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that good and sufficient reasons for allowing the application were not given. Being aggrieved by that, original appellants have filed the present appeal. 3. Normally in such matters, claimants do not appear before the Court on every date, unless the matter is actually fixed for evidence. It is the responsibility of the advocate engaged by the parties to represent the party before the Court. It appears that the advocate for the applicant was not responsible enough to appear before the Court whenever the matter was called. The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not disclosed the so called difficulty of the advocate. To that extent, it is difficult to find fault with the observations of the learned Member. However, it should be noted that by refusing the restoration of original application, no hardship would be caused to the concerned advocate but the poor parents of the deceased would suffer a loss. Their son can not come back but they could expect some compensation but they will be deprived of the compensation also if their application is not restored. It will cause great hardship and injustice to them. 4. Taking into consideration this aspect, on the :3: humanitarian ground, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside and the Original Application No.2004-266 is hereby restored to the file of the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal. The appellant shall not seek any adjournment from the Tribunal whenever the matter is called for evidence. 5. Appeal stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)