1. - Heard learned Counsels for the parties, perused the memo of appeal and the order dated 11.6.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Misc. Case No. 05/1994. Under this order the application filed by the claimant appellants under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant appellants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur for compensation on account of death of Mr. Beni Prasad in a motor accident which occurred on 3.12.1984. The claim petition was filed by the claimant appellants in the Tribunal through Advocates Mr. R.C. Chouhan and Mr. A.K. Saxena. Later on the claimant appellants engaged Mr. Ashok Kumar Bairwa, Advocate to conduct their claim petition.

3. The claimant appellants filed an application before the Tribunal and therein the prayer is made that they are unable to attend every date fixed in the claim petition and they may be exempted from appearing in person, on every date of hearing and their Counsel, may be allowed to appear on every date. The Counsel engaged by the claimant appellants assured them also that they are not required to come in the Court on every date. As and when their presence is required they will be accordingly informed.

4. The claimants appellant submit that for a long time they had not received any information from their Advocate about the claim petition. Thus they enquired about the matter and came to know that the Counsel, engaged by them in the claim petition, has expired. The claimant appellants instructed Mr. Girish Pareek, Advocate to enquire about the matter. On inquiry it came to their notice that the claim petition has already been dismissed for non-prosecution. The claimant appellants instructed Mr. Girish Pareek to file an application for restoration thereof. The notice of this application filed by the claimant appellants for restoration of the claim petition were issued to the respondents. Under impugned order dated 11.6.1997 that application was came to be rejected, hence this appeal.

5. On 7.12.1990 the claim petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order made by the Tribunal on 7.12.1990 is reproduced in the impugned order. From the perusal thereof it comes that on that date the Counsel for the claimant appellants was, not present. It further reveals that on the date, preceding to that date, the Counsel was also not present. The matter was called and as nobody has put appearance for the claimants, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution at 3.13. p.m.

6. Having gone through the order of the learned Tribunal, it pains to observe and state that it has adopted wholly perverse approach in the matter. The learned Tribunal has accepted in principle that in the matter of the restoration of the Motor Accident Claims case dismissed in default, the Tribunals have to adopt sympathetic view and approach, but while deciding of the matter it has totally shown disregard to this well settled and accepted proposition of law.

7. The Tribunal has not considered that the appellants are a widow and minor son and daughter of the deceased. The appellants looking to their difficulties have filed an application before the Tribunal and prayed therein that they may be exempted from their personal appearance on each and every date. The Tribunal has unnecessarily given much emphasis on the fact that the claim petition has been presented by the appellant No. 1 in person, but it has totally ignored this aspect that they have filed an application for exemption of their personal appearance. Each and every date of hearing in the Tribunal, the presence of the claimants is not necessary. Their presence is necessary for recording their oral statements. It is most unfortunate that despite of engaging three Advocates the poor claimants are suffered to the extent that their claim pe