JAGUBHAI Vs. RAMESHBHAI CHAGANBHAI MARVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Kushal Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits the draft amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Necessary amendments be carried out accordingly.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 918 of 2005 (claim petition) came to be dismissed for default, for non prosecution by an order dtd. 23/7/2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra (the Tribunal). It is stated that on coming to know about the dismissal, the petitioner had moved the Tribunal for restoration of the claim petition with an application being MACMA No. 895 of 2022 to condone the delay of 04 years, 01 month and 12 days in filing the said restoration application, however, the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal by an order dtd. 10/3/2023. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, firstly, the Tribunal ought not have dismissed the claim petition as laid down in the decision in Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, 2011 (2) GLR 1324 as all the claim petitions are to be decided on merits and secondly, it is submitted that the Tribunal should have considered the fact that the petitioner is from Taluka: Kalol, District: Panchmahals and falls in a group of unorganized labourers and the residents of Panchmahals move around other districts in search of labour work and therefore, would not constantly stay at their respective residences.

(3.) In case of the Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others (supra), it has been held that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss the Claim Petition for default taking into consideration the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. to provide adequate compensation to the claimants. The relevant part of the above decision is reproduced herein below: