The court ruled that previous claims' dismissals do not bar re-trial in cases lacking strict adherence to procedural rules in motor accident compensation cases, emphasizing access to justice.

1. Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3. Return has not been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petition is admitted for consideration.

4. With the consent of the parties, final arguments heard.

5. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition (227) invoking authority of the High Court for the power of superintendence to the court below.

6. As per facts of the case, initially on behalf of the petitioners MACT Case No. 269 of 2013 (Rajni v. Sanjay Kumar) was filed under S.166 and S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation as Jawahir alias Jawahar succumbed to the injuries in a motor accident. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Jawahir alias Jawahar. The said motor accident claim case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 31.10.2014 by the trial Judge, i.e., Additional District Judge, Sonipat (Haryana) as the applicants / petitioners failed to adduce evidence even after many opportunities to lead the evidence. Thereafter, on behalf of petitioners, MACT Case No. 35 of 2014 (Pramila Bai v. Sanjay Kumar) has been filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir Champa (CG) on 26.8.2014. The same was registered before the Tribunal on a preliminary objection made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / non - applicants. The court below vide order dated 23.2.2015 dismissed the claim case and held that the petitioners have already filed a claim case before the MACT, Sonipat (Haryana) which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31.10.2014 and the claimants - applicants concealing the same fact filed the present claim case during the pendency of the claim case at Sonipat (Haryana). The court below held that the claim case filed by the petitioners before the MACT, Janjgir Champa is not maintainable and hence it has dismissed the case. Against the impugned order, the petitioners preferred the instant writ petition and submitted that as the petitioners were struggling to overcome their trauma after the death of Jawahir alias Jawahar, grief, agony and poverty, they gave signatures on papers as directed by the counsel of Sonipat and the claim case has been filed at Sonipat itself. The claimants are permanent residents of village Pangaon, Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG). The head of the family, i.e., Jawahir alias Jawahar was engaged in a labour job in Haryana. On account of poverty and other facts, the petitioners ultimately returned to their original destination and still struggling for their bread as they were not enough educated and not in a financial or other position to contest the case at Sonipat, neither the counsel informed them regarding their evidence nor they got advice from their counsel at Janjgir Champa, in whose jurisdiction they are presently residing. They were not aware of the other facts and its necessity. On account of their ignorance, they have not brought these facts to the notice of their counsel in the matter pending before the MACT, Janjgir Champa and the aforementioned claim case was pending prior to filing of MACT Case No. 35 of 2014 before the Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa. The court below on hearing the preliminary objection made in this behalf, dismissed the suit as the claimants concealed this fact and also the subsequent Suit not maintainable

7. Return has not been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In reply / objection filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, they have opposed the petition strongly and submitted that as the claimants have concealed the facts bef