THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.165 of 2006 Date:24.09.2009 Between: Kavali Sujatha and others. ..Petitioners and V.Ashok and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.165 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.P.No.307 of 2000 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, claiming compensation on account of death of late Balakistaiah, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The O.P. was dismissed for default on 06.09.2001. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order. Since there was delay of 1059 days in filing the same, they filed I.A.No.822 of 2004 in O.P.No.307 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal dismissed the said I.A. through its order dated 22.11.2005. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The petitioners state that they have gone in search of work to the State of Maharashtra to eke out their livelihood. Even the description of the parties discloses that the sole breadwinner of the family died at a very young age and the first petitioner had to shoulder the burden to maintain the family. The plight of such a family can easily be imagined. Not only they are not conversant with the legal procedure, but their financial condition was miserable. Under these circumstances, the delay, though enormous, deserves to be condoned. Interests of the second respondent can be protected by directing that in the event of any compensation being awarded to the petitioners, interest thereon be denied to the extent of the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and order dated 22.11.2005 in I.A.No.822 of 2004 is set aside. Delay in presenting the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. is condoned. To avoid further complication in the matter, it is directed that the order dated 06.09.2001 dismissing the O.P. for default is set aside. The Tribunal shall take up the matter on priority basis. In case the counsel engaged by the petitioners is not forthcoming, the Tribunal shall make necessary arrangements from the legal service authority and also take steps to ensure the presence of the petitioners, to see that the O.P. prosecuted properly. In the event of any compensation being awarded, the same shall not carry interest for a period of three years. No order as to costs. ________________________ (L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 24th September, 2009 GHN