1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Anand in Restoration Application No. 90 of 2007, the present appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of brevity).

2. The facts indicate that the appellant had preferred MACP No. 1551 of 2006 (Old No. 1121/94). Record indicates that the claim petition was originally preferred by appellant on 30.07.1994 and when the matter came up before the Tribunal after a period of 12 years, the learned advocate representing the appellant did not remain present and by an order dated 24.01.2007, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand was pleased to dismiss the claim petition for default. The appellant herein filed an application for restoration as provided under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Restoration Application No. 90 of 2007, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2009. Cumulatively, therefore, the claim petition stands dismissed for default. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr. Lalji R. Mokaria, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Viswa Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate for respondent no.1. Respondents no.2 and 3 stand deleted as per the earlier order.

4. At this stage, Mr. Mokaria states that without adjudicating the claim petition as provided under section 166 of the Act, the learned Tribunal dismissed the same for default for no fault on the part of the appellant and Mr. Mokaria therefore contended that one more opportunity be given.

5. Ms. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.4 however objected to the same and contended that ample opportunities were given as recorded in the order dated 24.01.2007 when the claim petition came to be dismissed for default and therefore, no leniency should be shown to the appellant. Ms. Patel further submits that even if the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back for hearing on merits, for the period during which the claim petition stood dismissed, no interest liability should be imposed upon respondent no.1.

6. Mr. Mokaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant upon instruction states that the appellant is ready and willing to forgo interest from 24.01.2007 till 27.08.2009, the date on which the impugned order was passed in the application for restoration filed by the appellant.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, it clearly appears that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of filing the restoration application on the condition of payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- which is already deposited by the appellant. The facts indicate that the appellant preferred claim petition under section 166 of the Act.

8. In light of the aforesaid, the Tribunal has committed error in not deciding the claim petition on merits. It is equally true that the Tribunal was pleased to give ample time to the appellant-claimant. However, in facts of this case, the claim petition was at least no liable to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the same.

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it is provided as under-

“As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such