Advocates:
['NEERAJ KUMAR GURJAR', '', 'BEENA DHABHAI', 'PRAVEEN BHATI', 'MUKESH PATODIA', '', 'BHUVNESH THANVI']

(1 of 3)

[CW-13073/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13073/2018

Kailashchandra S/o Shri Mithulal Salvi (Balai), Aged About 36

Years, R/o Bahedia (Bheem), Presently Biliya Kallan, Tehsil And

Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Kanhaiyalal S/o Shri Chhoga Teli, B/c Teli, R/o Near

Gyaras Mata Ka Mandir, Pur, Thana Pratap Nagar,

Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).

(Registered Owner And Driver Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj-

06-PA-2724 And Respondent No. 1 In The Trial Court).

2.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through

Regional Manager, Regional Office United India Insurance

Company Limited, Bhilwara (Raj.).

(Insurance Company Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj-06-PA-2724

And Respondent No. 2 In The Trial Court).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Shobha Prabhakar for

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar

For Respondent(s)

:

None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

20/09/2022

This Court issued notice to respondents on 30.08.2018. The

office report shows that both the respondents have been served.

On 14.09.2022, the respondents were given time to argue the

matter failing which the writ petition was ordered to be decided

without respondents.

Today, when the matter is called out, nobody is present on

behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the matter is heard and

being decided finally.

(2 of 3)

[CW-13073/2018]

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 10.08.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case no. 37/2012, whereby the

learned Tribunal rejected the claim application of the petitioner in

default and the order dated 19.06.2018, whereby the application

preferred by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section

151 CPC for restoration of the claim application was also rejected

by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Misc.

Case No. 55/2017.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

10.08.2016, the petitioner was suffering from illness and,

therefore, could not appear before learned Tribunal. On that day,

even the counsel for the petitioner was also busy in some other

court, therefore, he could not cause appearance before learned

MACT, Bhilwara and the case was dismissed in default by the

Tribunal vide its order dated 10.08.2016. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner preferred an application for restoration

of the same giving explanation that since the petitioner was

suffering from fever and counsel was busy in some other court,

therefore, they could not appear before learned Tribunal on

10.08.2016, however, the learned Tribunal rejected the same vide

order dated 19.06.2018. She, therefore, prays that the present

writ petition may be allowed and the orders dated 10.08.2016 &

19.06.2018 passed by learned MACT, Bhilwara may kindly be

quashed and set aside.

This Court feels that the learned Tribunal should have

restored the claim application of the petitioner as the grounds

mentioned in the application for restoration of the claim

(3 of 3)

[CW-13073/2018]

application appears to be genuine and bonafide. Learned Tribunal

thus committed an error while passing the order dated

19.06.2018.

Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents to oppose

the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, this court feels that

ends of justice will be met, if the orders dated 10.08.2016 &

19.06.2018 are quashed and set aside and the claim application of

the petitioner is restored at its original number.

Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated

19.06.2018 as well as order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the

learned MACT, Bhilwara are quashed and set aside. The Claim

Case No. 37/2012 is restored at its original number. Learned

MACT