VINITA BAI Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dt. 13.7.98 in M.J.C. No. 1/97 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sagar, whereby the claim petition of the appel1ant, who is a minor aged about five years, was dismissed for non -prosecution.

(2.) THE appellant through her next friend - her father filed a petition claiming compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that, though the petitioner's counsel appeared before the tribunal, however, adequate steps for service of notice on non -applicant/respondents, were not taken and orders of the tribunal for payment of P.F., etc., were not complied, despite several opportunities. Ultimately, the claims petition was dismissed for non -prosecution.

(3.) THE petitioner's counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a minor and would suffer irreparably for the default on the part of her father. Even if her father is a defaulter, she should be given an opportunity to prosecute her case before the Tribunal. It has also been urged that the petitioner's father remained absent and also could not comply with the directions of the Tribunal, on account of his personal difficulties. He submits that if an opportunity in the interest of justice, and in the interest of minor is given, the petitioner's father would diligently and sincerely, prosecute the matter before the tribunal.