NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is indicated from the order that the hearing of a claim petition was protracted by the side of the claimants. The counsel appearing for the claimants sought frequent adjournments. That mainly caused the delay. The witnesses were also not promptly examined. The entry in the order -sheets show that the counsel appearing for the claimant sought adjournments as he could not inform the date of hearing of the claim petition to his clients, who are residing at Delhi. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and keeping in view the benevolent spirit of enactment by condoning the delay, restored the claim petition which was dismissed for default. The Tribunal observed that there was no point in putting the claimants to hardship on account of the defaults on the part of the counsel engaged by the claimant/claimants.

(2.) I do not find anything improper in the approach taken by the Tribunal in this context.

(3.) THUS , this petition stands dismissed and not admitted. The Tribunal should decide the claim petition positively within six months. The Tribunal should also keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the above portion of the order while granting the interest amount on compensation.