THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.534 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa against the respondents claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident. The M.V.O.P. was dismissed on 16.05.2001 on the ground that batta was not paid for the service of notice on the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1. The petitioner filed I.A.No.484 of 2001 with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 16.05.2001. The Tribunal dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 05.07.2002. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Though respondent No.1 was served with notice through substituted service, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The only ground on which the M.V.O.P. was dismissed was that the batta was not paid for respondent No.1. On realizing the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No.484 of 2001 duly paying the batta. Both the respondents were served in the I.A. The Tribunal ought to have restored the M.V.O.P., once the respondents were served. However, it has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter and dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the batta was not paid for respondent No.1. In fact, the very basis for dismissal of the M.V.O.P. was non-payment of batta and the defect could have been rectified by allowing the I.A. The relief claimed under a social security measure was denied for the past several years. At the same time, the respondents cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay interest for the period during which the C.M.A. was pending before this Court. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.484 of 2001 is allowed and M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2001 is restored to file. It is directed that any compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall not carry interest from July, 2002 to till date. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter at the earliest, duly giving opportunity to respondent No.1. It shall not insist on fresh notice being served upon respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.08.2010 kdl