MASTER ABHILASH KRISHNAN Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) WITH the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. In the first instance, the Tribunal, which had restored the claim petition to its original number, could not have on a subsequent date of hearing proceeded to dismiss the same even without notice to the petitioners, solely on the ground that the vakalatnama of the counsel who had appeared was not on record. This course of action was wholly unjustified. Then again, on 17th April, 2010, when a fresh application for the restoration of the claim petition was filed by the petitioners with an application for condonation of delay, there was no justification for the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay and restore the petition. The Tribunal completely lost sight of the fact that the petitioners were the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Pushpa Gopalkrishnan, who died in an unfortunate road accident and the petitioners No.1 and 2 were minors at the time of death of their mother. Their claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, could not have been dismissed even assuming there was a default on the part of their counsel.