URMILA DEVI Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the widow and minor children of one Mahendra Chaturvedi, who died in an automobile accident on 10th May, 1989. They filed a petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa which was registered as Claim Case No. 100/1991. On 18.9.1992 this case was dismissed for default in appearance of the claimants and their Counsel. The claimants applied for restoration of the case under Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C., but the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed this petition also holding that the petitioners had failed to establish sufficient cause for their non -appearance. This order of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been challenged before this Court.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were the young widow and minor children of the victim. The widow herself was only aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and the children were in their infancy. The date on which the claim petition was dismissed the default was the first date for evidence. The Counsel for the appellants had sworn an affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the circumstances under which the default occurred. The impugned order is totally unreasonable and unsustainable. The Counsel for the respondents however supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that in case the claim petition was to be restored, heavy cost should be imposed.

(3.) LOOKING to the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the claimants had failed to prove sufficient cause for failure to appear on 18.9.1992. We find that sufficient cause has been shown.