RAMILABEN WIDOW OF JITENDRABHAI @ JITUBHAI BHAILALBHAI PATEL & OTHER Vs. SANDIPBHAI CHNDRAKANTBHAI DESAI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Paresh M.Darji for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.K.V.Gadhia for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr.V.C.Thomas for respondent No.4.

(2.) The petitioners herein are original claimants, whereas, respondents are original opponents in M.A.C.P. No.417 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Anand. It seems that such claim petition was dismissed for default by order dated 12.3.2015 when it was transferred from Nadiad to Anand and therefore, claimants/petitioners have filed Misc.Application No.357 of 2015 for restoration of the main claim petition. By impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2015 though allowed the restoration application as prayed for and thereby, restored the M.A.C.P. No.2598 of 2006 (Old No.417 of 1997) on the file of the Tribunal, but with two conditions i.e.

(3.) I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is material irregularity, which results into illegality, when impugned order is allowing the restoration application with conditions as referred herein above for the simple reason that, in fact, claim petition cannot be dismissed for default. Considering that Tribunals are supposed to decide all such applications on merits and even based on information received in the nature of Form No.54, when Tribunal has already restored the petition, I do not have to discuss much on such issue.