The court emphasized the need to consider the claimant's inability to pay costs and the objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in restoring the claim petition, highlighting the duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation based on the available material.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner (a widow) has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar below Exhibit 8 as well as the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar and also restore the Claim Petition being M.A.C.P. No.104 of 2004 filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y.J. Patel submits that the petitioner was injured and had filed M.A.C.P. No.104 of 2004 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surendranagar for getting a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Patel that the matter remained dormant and sine die for a long period and it was only on 05.04.2005 that the issues came to be framed and the claimant was never informed about the full progress in the trial and no notice was sent by the concerned Court after framing of the charges and on 11.07.2016 it is submitted that it appears that learned Advocate for the applicant / claimant was praying for time and thereafter on 11.07.2016, the claim petition came to be rejected.

3. It is submitted that the M.A.C.P. (for Restoration) No.86 of 2016 was moved and the claimant had given reasons for the learned Advocate moving an application on her behalf for adjournment stating that the applicant is engaged in the animal husbandry work and therefore, at the relevant time could not remain present before the Court to adduce her evidence. The learned Tribunal on hearing the applicant after referring to the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324, had restored the application on condition of paying an amount of Rs.500/- to D.L.S.A., Surendranagar within 3 days of the order. Thus, M.A.C.P. No.104 of 2004 was ordered to be restored on the file for deciding the same on merits. As per the submission, since the amount could not be deposited within the time frame as per the order, an application dated 11.01.2017 was filed before the learned M.A.C.T., Surendranagar for accepting the amount of Rs.500/-. It is submitted that owing to de-monetization on 08.11.2016, the amount of Rs.500/- could not be deposited before D.L.S.A. and the order dated 29.11.2016 could not be complied with. The application for accepting the money in compliance of the order dated 29.11.2016 moved as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.86 of 2016 came to be rejected on 12.01.2017.

4. It is submitted that the said order dated 12.01.2017 and the order dated 24.07.2018 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.87 of 2017 for condoning the delay came to be rejected and challenge is against both the orders.

5. In case of the Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324 (supra), it has been held that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss the Claim Petition for default taking into consideration the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e. to provide adequate compensation to the claimants. The relevant part of the above decision is reproduced herein below as under :-

“A District Judge, who functions as a Claims Tribunal, is not only within the administrative control of the High Court, but also subordinate to it under Section 115 of the Code. A Claims Tribunal is a ‘Court’ although with limited jurisdiction and not a mere ‘Tribunal’. The powers of appeal given to the High Court under the Act against the decision of the Tribunal constituted under the Act, will definitely lead to conclusion that the said Tribunal is subordinate to the High Court and the nomenclature given to the Motor Vehicles Tribunal that, it is a Tribunal, will not take it out of the purview of the Civil Court. (Para 5)

Under Rule 3, therefore, even if, neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing, it is not compulsory for