The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the tribunal to provide just and reasonable compensation based on material available on record and the need for restoration of the claim petition in line with the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Civil Misc. Application No.192 of 2020 whereby the tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner – original claimants for restoration of the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.3143 of 2001.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim states that the application was filed for restoration of the M.A.C.P. No.3143 of 2001, which came to be dismissed for default on 24.10.2016. Mr. Hakim submits that the delay in filing the restoration application was condoned, however, the learned tribunal rejected the Civil Misc. Application No.192 of 2020 by observing that since the award has been passed by the learned tribunal, the appeal under Section-173 of the M.V. Act would lie before this Court. Hence, the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the tribunal cannot restore the claim petition by reversing the judgment and award as being the Appellate Authority.

3. The M.A.C.P. No.3143 of 2001 was dismissed for default on 24.10.2016 observing that the petitioners have not produced documents in support of their claim petition and they failed to prove the genuineness of the matter before the tribunal. Many opportunities have been given to the claimants and the lawyer. The learned tribunal had granted many adjournment applications of the learned advocate of the petitioners and the learned tribunal had also granted application Exh.16 to file vakalatnama as well as application Exh.19 to submit written statement of the opponent no.3 – Insurance Company. The learned tribunal observed that the issues were framed at Exh.21 and the parties have never remained present before the tribunal. It is further observed that the learned advocate for the petitioners had appearered before the tribunal on 04.10.2016, but he never submitted any report though he had assured for the same, ultimately, the learned tribunal has closed the right of the parties to produce documentary evidence as well as to argue the matter by an order below Exh.1 dated 14.10.2016. The learned tribunal observed that neither the parties nor the lawyers are interested to proceed with the matter and nothing has been done towards the claim petition. The learned tribunal further observed that the petitioners had never submitted any basic documents for alleged vehicular accident at the time of filing the claim petition and the petitioners had failed to prove the genuineness of the matter by entering into the witness box or as per Rule-211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 or otherwise.

4. It appears that the learned tribunal dismissed the Motor Accident Claim Petition holding that sufficient opportunities had been given to the petitioners and the lawyers to proceed further with the claim petition, but none of them had taken care to produce the documentary evidence in support of the matter. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that the advocate on record had expired in the year 2013. Mr. Hakim further submits that no vakalatnama in-fact was on record and as per the observation of the learned tribunal, the application of Exh.16 to file vakalatnama and to submit the written submit was of the opponent no.3 – Insurance Company. The learned tribunal should have kept in mind the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act and following the judgments and proposition of law laid down in the case of Jay Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 and in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others vs. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324, the learned tribunal ought not to have dismissed the matter.

5. Further, when the prayer was made for restoration of the claim petition, the learned tribunal should have restore the same, since at the very first place there should not have been any dismissal of the claim petition. If at all the learned tribunal found that the adv