ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.10.2021 below Exhibit-1 in MACP No.269 of 2018 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application which was made with a prayer to restore MACP No.269 of 2018 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 16.02.2018.

2. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate submits that the main petition came to be dismissed for default as the learned advocate failed to remain present and could not produce the address of the opponent. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate submits that the learned Tribunal has adversely noted that the matter had been pending for about 21 years and the applicant have failed to produce the correct address of opponents. It shows that they are not eager to conduct the matter by regularly remaining present and rejected the restoration application on the ground that the Tribunal is flooded with old matters. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate submitted that the rejection of restoration application has led to miscarriage of justice. The pendency of the matters in the Court would not be because of fault of any of the litigants. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate submits that Insurance Company was already served, the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time but could not be served during the restoration application. By Public Notice. In Government Gazette produced at Exhibit-14, the notice was served, and in the present matter, the owner is the respondent No.1 and by regular service of this Court he has been served, hence, would have notice and knowledge of the MACP pending before the Tribunal.

3. Ms. Ami Bhatt, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the restoration application since the claimant was negligent in his approach, and therefore, no concession should be granted to him. In the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324, the Court has observed that the tribunal has no power to dismiss accident claim petition for default and there should be finding on merit and in case of dismissal of the claim petition it shall always be open to the claimant to apply for restoration and the Court may set aside the order of dismissal and restore the matter.

4. The learned Tribunal cannot find fault with the litigant for the pendency of the matter. The Claim Petition cannot be dismissed for default. The dismissal was on the ground that the process was not served to the opponents as the correct address of the opponent could not be produced on record. It is to be noted that in accident cases all the details regarding the opponents are to be produced by the Investigating Officer under form No.54 so that it becomes convenient for the claimants to know the whereabouts and addresses of the driver, owner and that of the Insurance Company. The claimants made attempts and tried to procure the address of the opponents. The Tribunal are required to support the claimants for services to the opponents so that substantial justice could be done. Delay in the matters could not be made a ground of dismissal of the petition. Thus keeping in mind the proposition laid down in the case of Bharatbhai (supra), order dated 14.10.2021 is quashed and set aside. The MACP No.269 of 2018 is ordered to be restored in the file in the concerned MACT (Aux.), Banaskantha District at Palanpur.

(GITA GOPI,J)

Manoj