VEENABEN Vs. RASIKLAL M. PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions are raised on the ground that the Motor Accident Claim Petitions were dismissed for default. This Court does not find any necessity to send the notice to the other side for the reasons given herein below.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Sandip Shah for the petitioner contends that all these matters are raised against a similar order passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.928/2005, 929/2005, 930/2005 arises out of the same accident and was filed by the claimants on the very day. The learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss all the matters on 7/11/2009 by passing an order below exhibit -1, observing that when the parties were called out neither the petitioner nor his advocate remained present. The petition was pending for recording the evidence of the petitioner and the issues had been framed by the predecessor on 28/1/2009 till that date, the matter is pending for recording of evidence further observing that the petitioner failed to lead the evidence before the Court and therefore the Tribunal deemed fit to dismiss for default under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that the restoration application was moved by the parties in all the matters, however the same also came to be dismissed on the similar grounds of default from the side of the petitioners. It is submitted that the said restoration application was filed with an application for condoning the delay, again the claimants moved the Tribunal for restoring the restoration application earlier moved in the matters. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that vide order below exhibit- 1 the learned Tribunal dismissed the said prayer observing that ample opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce the documentary as well as oral evidences but the petitioners failed to do, so, the predecessor Tribunal had dismissed the Motor Accident Claim Petition on 7/11/2009 and thereafter restoration application on 30/1/2010 was filed with a delay of 54 days which was not properly explained by the learned advocate for the petitioner and so for that reason the predecessor Tribunal disposed the restoration application.