1. This appeal is under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by claimants before the Additional MAC Tribunal, Mysore in MVC.No.137/2004. The claim was due to the death of the bread winner – the husband of the 1st claimant – appellant and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are minor daughter and minor son respectively of the deceased person.

2. Claim was for the reason that the person by name Puttaraju, had died in an accident that occurred on 15.03.2004 at about 10.30 p.m. involving two Motor Vehicles, when he was riding a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No.CAT – 4235, which was dashed against by a goods tempo bearing registration No.KA-21 1708 coming from the opposite direction at Hunasavadi, near Periayapatna, Kushalnagar Road driven by the 1st respondent and as a result of the injuries the person had succumbed, to the same later at.

3. The claim was for seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- and as against this amount of compensation with the matter being contested by the respondents – the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the tempo respectively, the Tribunal quantified the total compensation due to the claimants at Rs.1,83,000/- as computed under :-

Loss of Dependency =Rs. 1,60,000-00

Loss of Expectancy = 10,000-00

Loss of = 10,000-00

Funeral expenses = 3,000-00

Rs. 1,83,000-00

4. It is complaining that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate, the present appeal by the claimants.

5. The appeal papers were presented by the learned counsel for the appellants on 2nd June 2005, but with many defects. The High Court registry on noticing such defects in the presentation of the appeal, notified the same on the notice board of the registry for compliance on 15.06.2005. The appeal memorandum was required to be set right and made presentable within six weeks thereafter, and today it is submitted before us by Sri Karumbaiah, learned counsel for the appellants that some of the office objections had been complied with on 12.07.2005.

6. However, it appears the registry noticed that, not all defects had been removed and in spite of it, listed the matter before the Court on 9.08.2005. The order sheet reflects the following order on the said date : "SRNJ/CRKSJ : 09.08.2005 Finally two weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without any further orders from the Court. "

7. As it appears that the counsel for the appellants had not removed the defects and had not made the appeal presentable within two weeks time, granted by this Court as per order passed on 09.08.2005, registry has treated the appeal as dismissed on 09.08.2005 in lieu of peremptory order passed by this Court on 9.08.2005. In such circumstances, the appeal has been treated to be dismissed due to non-compliance of office objections and for failing to remove the defects in the presentation as had been noticed by the Registry. The registry has recorded that the appeal was not tenable and was not required by law.

8. It is under such circumstances, the Misc.Cvl.No.10784/2010 is now filed under Section 151 of CPC for re-calling the order dated 09.08.2005 and Misc.Cvl.10782/2010 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1768 days in filing the application for re-calling the order.

9. Both the applications are accompanied by affidavit sworn to by Sri Karumbaiah, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Karumbaiah appearing before us, submits that the counsel was oblivious of the developments leading to the dismissal of the appeal and was not aware that the appeal had come to be dismissed by a peremptory order passed by this Court and became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only on l0.07.20l0, when it became necessary for the counsel to verify his office records in the wake of certain developments and he having received the information that the 3rd appellant - a minor son of the deceased was no more, as in a