RAMSINH DUNGERSINH RAJPUT Vs. BHAIRAVSINH DUNGERSINH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Umang Raval, who submits that on 19/11/2018, M.A.C.P. No.3268 of 2003 came to be dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Panchamahal at Godhra for default observing that no efforts were made for service of notice to opponents No.1 and 3. It is submitted that a Restoration application, i.e. M.A.C.M.A No.725 of 2020 was moved with a delay condonation application. However, the same also came to be rejected on 4/1/2023 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra.

(2.) The Delay Condonation Application, i.e. M.A.C.M.A. No.725 of 2020 was rejected observing that the learned Advocate has not appeared before the Court on the date while even at the same time on the date when the application came for hearing, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration the endorsement of the Insurance Company of no objection. Further, the application by the learned Advocate on record states about the possibilities of settlement.

(3.) It is further submitted that the petitioners hail from a remote area and the owner of the vehicle is also from Rajasthan. The claim petition which was filed is under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also submitted that the Court on its own would have sent the Notice through the Investigating Officer and could have got it served. It is further submitted that the application to serve through public notice was allowed but such order bears costs of publication. Since the accident had occurred at Pavagadh, within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Panchmahal, the M.A.C.P. was preferred.