IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No 471 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- MINOR JIVAN HARJI KATARA Versus ANANDRAO CHHATRASINHRAO -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PK PAREKH for Appellant MR JN JADEJA for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Date of decision: 19/09/97 ORAL JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the order dated August 20, 1987, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rejecting the restoration application in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 227 of 1983 filed by Jivan Harji Katara, who was then a minor. 2. The aforesaid Claim Petition was filed by the minor through his guardian and next friend Labhshanker Chhanalal Bhojak for recovery of compensation from the respondents herein as the minor had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident on April 11, 1984. When the Claim Petition was called out for hearing, the aforesaid guardian was not well and therefore, he did not attend the Court and the claimant's learned advocate was busy in another court. On that ground, the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition for default of appearance. 3. The restoration application was filed on April 27, 1984 i.e. within 15 days from the date of dismissal of the Claim Petition and it is indeed sad that the Tribunal, instead of allowing the restoration application, dismissed the same on August 20, 1987. It is unfortunate that the restoration application was heard and decided after more than three years. It is even more unfortunate that the present appeal against the aforesaid decision rejecting the restoration application has come up for hearing after ten years. 4. Admittedly, Jivan Harji Katara was a minor when the accident took place, when the Claim Petition was filed, when the Claim Petition was dismissed for default and even when the restoration application was rejected. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that merely because the guardian had not attended the proceedings on a particular day on the ground of his sickness, the Tribunal ought not to have been hyper technical in castigating the guardian for not producing medical certificate in support of his sickness when the person to suffer was the minor and not the guardian who does not appear to be related to the minor. In fact, there is some controversy sought to be raised by the learned Advocate for respondent no.2 whether the said guardian was a lawful guardian or not. This Court is not required to go into that controversy at all because Jivan Harji Katara has already attained majority long back. Be that as it may, the Tribunal ought to have taken a pragmatic and reasonable view of the matter and restored the Claim Petition. If at all, the Tribunal could have at the most passed an order awarding costs to the respondents as a condition for restoring the petition. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order dated August 20, 1987 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the restoration application is hereby set aside. Misc. Civil Application No. 39 of 1984 for restoration is hereby allowed. The Tribunal is directed to take up Claim Petition No. 227 of 1983 for hearing as expeditiously as possible. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ******* Amp/-