1 wp7952-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7952 OF 2010 Nandakumar Hirachand Gujar & Ors .. Petitioners versus Ramchandra Rao Poorchandra Roa Nimmagadda & Ors .. Respondents Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th August 2011. P.C.: . The petitioners are the original applicants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.238 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati. 2 That claim petition was dismissed in default and an application for restoration thereof has also been dismissed. This is why, this writ petition under Article 227 of the 2 wp7952-10.doc Constitution of India. 3 Time and again, this Court has emphasised the fact that in claim applications and particularly, seeking compensation for the family members or to the victims of the accident of motor vehicle, the Tribunal should not take hyper technical view and punish the parties for their absence on one or two occasions. Further, they should not be penalised for their advocate’s fault for not complying with certain objections raised by the Registry of the Tribunal. 4 It is true that in this case, the petitioners have been absent and that has continued for some time, yet, in the application for restoration it was stated that the claim petition was fixed for hearing on 8th April 2008. The advocate Mr.Ashok Shah appearing for the petitioners was down with flu and his doctor did not permit him to travel and, therefore, on the relevant date, neither the petitioners-applicants nor their advocates were present. That is how the application was dismissed, but, noticing that it was dismissed for default, the 3 wp7952-10.doc restoration application was filed. 5 The Tribunal has held that there is no evidence coming forward about advocate’s absence and his inability to attend the Court. While it is true that the Court’s anxiety is to ensure that such matters are taken up and decided at the earliest, yet, on what occasions it is not the parties fault because whenever they engage an advocate, matters are left to his discretion and it is for him to perform his duty by attending the Court regularly. In the instant case, the deceased Rakesh Nandkumar Gujar was aged 21 years and he died in an accident. The petitioners are his heirs and legal representatives. In these circumstances and since Ms.Parasnis assures the Court that hereinafter, neither the applicants nor their advocate will remain absent and will co-operate in the early and expeditious disposal of the writ petition, that the impugned order is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The application seeking compensation is restored to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29th August 2011 at 10.30 4 wp7952-10.doc a.m and if the parties and their advocates so appear, the Tribunal will assist them by taking up their matter in time bound manner. It is for the Tribunal to fix date of hearing and final disposal of the petition. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)