Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Bhawani Travels – owner of the alleged offending bus involved in the accident (respondent no.2 in the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – in short ‘the Tribunal’) has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to challenge order dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure P-7) thereby allowing application Annexure P-4, thereby restoring claim petition filed by claimants (respondents no. 1 to 5 herein) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short – the Act), claiming compensation for the death of Kulwinder Singh (husband of claimant no.1, father of minor claimants no.2 and 3 and son of claimants no.4 and 5). Proforma respondent no.6 Balwinder Pal was allegedly driving the bus at the time of accident and is respondent no.1 in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

2. Respondents no.1 to 5 herein filed claim petition Annexure P-1 under Section 166 of the Act. The said claim petition was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) on 27.03.2008. The same counsel, who represented the claimants in the first claim petition, filed another claim petition Annexure P-2 for the same relief, but under Section 163-A of the Act on 15.05.2008, without disclosing to the claimants that first claim petition Annexure P-1 had been dismissed in default. The counsel kept ensuring the claimants that their claim petition was going on and in fact, even told them ultimately that relief had been granted to them. However, when copy of order passed in the second claim petition was handed over to the claimants, they learnt that their second claim petition had been dismissed on 26.08.2010 on the ground that earlier, similar claim petition Annexure P-1 had already been dismissed in default on 27.03.2008. Thereupon, the claimants came to know that their first claim petition had been dismissed in default. Consequently, claimants filed restoration application Annexure P-4 for restoration of their first claim petition along with application Annexure P-5 for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, making the aforesaid averments.

3. Petitioner and proforma respondent no.6 herein (respondents before the Tribunal), by filing the reply Annexure P-6, opposed the aforesaid restoration application.

4. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order Annexure P-7, has allowed the restoration application and claim petition Annexure P-1 has been restored to its original number. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.2 before the Tribunal has filed this revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

6. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of this Court in the case of Khazisra vs. Jagdish reported as 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 214, contended that restoration application was barred by limitation. There is no dispute with the legal proposition. However, the Tribunal has found sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. Consequently, judgment in the case of Khazisra (supra) has no applicability to the instant case.

7. The claimants made out sufficient ground for restoration of the claim petition. The claimants are poor relatives of deceased and shattered on account of death of their sole bread winner. They were relying on Advocate, who was pursuing their claim petition, but the Advocate never told them that their first claim petition had been dismissed in default and second claim petition had been instituted on their behalf. The second claim petition was dismissed as not maintainable on account of dismissal of the first claim petition in default, although on merits, the claimants were found entitled to compensation in the second claim petition, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, it would be travesty of justice, if the claimants are denied the benefit of compensation, to which the