RAMKINKER Vs. MANOJ COMMERCIALS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, I may state that instead of an appeal a revision under section 115 CPC should have been filed against the order which has been passed in proceedings before the Tribunal under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. This memo of appeal, therefore, is treated as Memo of Civil Revision under section 115 CPC and is being decided as such.

(2.) THIS is undoubtedly a hard case for the appellants. This appeal/revision is filed against the order dated 10.11.90 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the present appellants for restoration of their claim petition, which was dismissed in default, has been rejected.

(3.) THE applicants then moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking restoration of the claim petition. In the application, it was stated that applicant, Ramkinkar, who was 70 years of age, was ill and advised one month's bed -rest. The claims Tribunal rejected the application for restoration, holding that the delay caused after recovery from illness was not satisfactorily explained. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants relies on the Single Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of this Court reported in Mahila Ramdai v. Nandkumar (AIR 1988 MP 98). It has been held in the above decision that the provision for payment of interim compensation, based on the principle of 'no fault liability' contained in section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, casts a statutory duty on the Tribunal to pay interim compensation irrespective of the fact whether an application for the purpose was made by the claimants or not.