SONKALI GIRI Vs. TAIGUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/claimants are the unfortunate parents of Ratan Giri @ Akshay Giri, who died in a road accident on 25.4.2007. A claim case was filed by the petitioners on 4.2.2008 and on most of the dales they were duly represented through their counsel. However, on 3.12.2010 the said claim case was dismissed for want of prosecution. On 15.12.2010 the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for restoration of their claim case. This application was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 11.9.2013 holding that dismissal of the claim case on 3.12.2010 was proper. Against the order dated 11.9.2013 the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal No. 91/13 before this Court, which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the counsel engaged by the claimants were under the impression that on 3.12.2010 issues would be framed and because of that he did not appear before the Court and at about 4 p.m. when he reached the Court to note down the next date of hearing, he came to know about dismissal of the claim case. He submits that even otherwise the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are benevolent provisions and the Courts should take a liberal view in at least restoration of such cases. He also submits that if the claim case of the petitioners is not restored, they would suffer an irreparable loss.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.