1. The applicants, by way of present petition, have challenged the legality and validity of order dated 2nd June 2004, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Navsari, whereby, the application for restoration being Misc. Civil Application No. 8 of 2004 was rejected on the ground that there is no provision to restore the Restoration Application in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). The applicants have challenged order dated 2nd June 2004 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 8 of 2004 as well as order dated 9th January 2004, passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 99 of 2003, whereby, the application filed under O. 9 R. 4 of the Code for restoration of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 543 of 1995, was dismissed for default.

2. After preliminary hearing of this matter, by order dated 13th August 2004, Rule was ordered to be issued. The respondents are served. Learned advocate Mr. UM Panchal is appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Salil Thakore is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3.

3. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and bad in law and require to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error while considering the provisions of O. 9 R. 4 of the Code. It is also submitted that the impugned orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the same were passed without giving proper opportunities to the parties. The learned advocate for the applicants, while referring to Annexure 'D' to the petition, pointed out that, Issues were framed at exh. 19 on 4th August 1998 in the Claim Petition. Thereafter, no date of adjournment appears in the Rojnama of 4th August 1998. However, on 10th August 1998, the Rojnama speaks: “Called out. The parties and Advocates were present. Looking to the old file it is not possible to hear this matter in near future.

Hence this suit is placed on Sine die board. Parties be informed when it is to be taken on board for effective hearing”. Thus, no specific returnable date for effective hearing was mentioned therein. On 22nd July 2002, the Rojnama speaks for the, 'notice to be issued to advocate for the applicants through Civil Judge (J.D.), Bardoli, which was returnable on 23rd August 2002'. It is submitted that, although the parties were also required to be informed by service of notice, as stated in the Rojnama dated 10th August 1998, the subsequent Rojnama dated 23rd August 2002 does not indicate that notice issued to the learned advocate for the applicants has been returned, either served or unserved. In fact, Rojnama dated 22nd July 2002 and subsequent thereto, do not speak a single word, whether such notice, as stated therein, has been issued on which date. It is submitted that, in this set of circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought not have found fault, either with the absence of the applicants or their advocate.

3.1 It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have made any undue and unwarranted haste to dispose of the main application in absence of the applicants. In support of his submissions the learned advocate for the applicants has referred to and relied upon a decision in the case of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400.

3.2 Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the applicants submitted that O.9 R. 4 of the Code is required to be interpreted in its wider meaning and considering the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) being a beneficial and benevolent law for granting compensation to the injured victims or near relatives of the deceased, died of an accident. The provisions relating thereto, should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice and not to sacrifice the justice at the niceties and technicalities of the law.