( 1 ) HEARD counsel for petitioner.

( 2 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims Tribunal, 9th Additional District Judge, Muzaffar- nagar has by its order dated 28. 10. 2002, allowed application filed by the claimant- respondent No. 2, Tej Pal Singh, under order 9, rule 4 read with section 151, Civil procedure Code for recalling order dated 19. 12. 2000 in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed in default on 19. 12. 1997 and has restored Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 to its original number. The said order dated 28. 10. 2002, is under challenge in this writ petition.

( 3 ) MR. Saurabh Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this court in nanhi Bai v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, banda, 1996 ACJ 1153 (Allahabad), holding that all the provisions of Code of civil Procedure have not been made applicable before the Tribunal and that only the provisions, specified under rule 21 of U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967, are applicable. Neither Order 9, rule 9 nor section 151, Civil Procedure Code has been made applicable to the proceedings for restoration of application dismissed in default. According to the Division bench, the provisions appear to have been deliberately excluded from application and that it is a case of cosus omissus.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid decision was rendered in respect of claim filed under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and in interpretation of rule 21 of U. P. Motor accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967, made under the Act, which was amended in 1988 and a new Act, namely, the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) was enacted making substantial and comprehensive changes with regard to the accident claims. Whereas section 140 provides for the no fault liability, section 163 provided for a scheme for payment of compensation in the case of hit and run motor accidents. Section 163-A makes special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis and that section 168 provided for award of Claims Tribunal. The limitation of six months provided in subsection (3) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and the power of Tribunal to condone the delay up to the expiry of twelve months was deleted by the Motor vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. A new set of rules were framed in the name of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 regulating procedures to the Claims Tribunal. Rule 221 is pari materia to rule 21 of 1967 and provides a s follows: "221. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases. The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the claims Tribunal, namely, rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V, Order IX, rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII; rules 2 to 21 of order XVI; Order XVII; and rules 1 to 3 of Order XXIII. "

( 5 ) THE rules are framed for carrying out the object and purpose of the Act. Since the Act has been amended by taking away limitation for filing claims, a claim petition which is not rejected at the first hearing cannot be dismissed for default.

( 6 ) SECTION 168 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Section 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles act, 1988, provides that as soon as any