The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a justice-oriented approach in motor vehicle claim cases, emphasizing the liberal construction of statutory provisions and the importance of doing justice between the parties.

S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the writ petition and its enclosures.

2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the claimant petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 8th of May, 1999 (Annexure-1) and order dated 13th of July, 2001 of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). Further prayer is made for restoration of the claim petition to its original number with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the same within the stipulated period.

3. The facts, in brief , giving rise to filing of this petition are that the claimant petitioners filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,17,500/-for the loss suffered by them due to the death of their minor son aged 9 years, a student of Second class, in an accident took place on 27th of August, 1994. This claim petition was registered as claim case No. 24/1994. They engaged Sri Jag Mohan Singh, Sr. Advocate. He assured the claimants petitioners that he would attend each and every date in the matter and when their presence would be required, he would inform them accordingly.

4. It is statedthat after presentation of the claim petition, unfortunately the counsel for the claimants petitioners suffered by cancer disease. He remained hospitalized for a long time and ultimately died. When the claimant petitioners came to know of the death of their counsel, the claimant petitioner No. 1 rushed to the Tribunal personally and made a search of the position of the claim petition.

5. On 18thof December. 1996 for the first time he came to know that the claim petition has been dismissed for non prosecution on 8th of May, 1995. He contacted Sri Ramesh Dhabhai, Advocate and moved an application on 27-1-1997 for restoration of the claim duly supported by an affidavit. He also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The notices of this application were issued to the respondents. None of the respondents filed reply to the application. Under the impugned order the learned trial Court dismissed that application and thus this writ petition.

6. Fromthe order of the learned Tribunal, I find that orally this application was strongly opposed by the Insurance Company. In such matters and more so after the amendment made by the Parliament in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’), opposition of the application for restoration by the Insurance Company is difficult to appreciate.

7. This Court has granted time to the counsel for the Insurance Company to take instructions in the matter whether the Insurance Company is really opposing it. The learned counsel has taken instructions and stated that the Insurance Company is opposing it. This Court called the Regional Manager of the Company.

He stated that on receipt of the notices of the case the Company engaged the Advocates and instructed them to contest the same on merits. The Regional Manager of the Company stands to the stand that the Company contests the matter.

8. I find from the record of the case that in the motor accident the only son of the claimants petitioner, aged 9 years, has died. The averments made by the claimants petitioners in their application for restoration of the claim petition which was dismissed in default, stand uncontroverted as reply thereto has not been filed by the Company. That is also the position with regard to the application filed by the claimant petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thus, there is no dispute on the facts.

9. Thepetitioners engaged Sri Jag Mohan Singh, Advocate in the matter. The Advocate fell ill and remained confined to bed for a long period and ultimately died on 18th December, 1996. The petitioners came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition for non-prosecution on 8th of May, 1995. Shri Jag Mohan Singh, Advoca