BHAWANI TRAVELS Vs. SARABJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAWANI Travels - owner of the alleged offending bus involved in the accident (respondent No.

(2.) IN the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - in short 'the Tribunal') has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to challenge order dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure P -7) thereby allowing application Annexure P -4, thereby restoring claim petition filed by claimants (respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short - the Act), claiming compensation for the death of Kulwinder Singh (husband of claimant No. 1, father of minor claimants No. 2 and 3 and son of claimants No. 4 and 5). Proforma respondent No. 6 Balwinder Pal was allegedly driving the bus at the time of accident and is respondent No. 1 in the claim petition before the Tribunal. Respondents No. 1 to 5 herein filed claim petition Annexure P -1 under Section 166 of the Act. The said claim petition was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) on 27.03.2008. The same counsel, who represented the claimants in the first claim petition, filed another claim petition Annexure P -2 for the same relief, but under Section 163A of the Act on 15.05.2008, without disclosing to the claimants that first claim petition Annexure P -1 had been dismissed in default. The counsel kept ensuring the claimants that their claim petition was going on and in fact, even told them ultimately that relief had been granted to them. However, when copy of order passed in the second claim petition was handed over to the claimants, they learnt that their second claim petition had been dismissed on 26.08.2010 on the ground that earlier, similar claim petition Annexure P -1 had already been dismissed in default on 27.03.2008. Thereupon, the claimants came to know that their first claim petition had been dismissed in default. Consequently, claimants filed restoration application Annexure P -4 for restoration of their first claim petition along with application Annexure P -5 for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, making the aforesaid averments. 2 Petitioner and proforma respondent No. 6 herein (respondents before the Tribunal), by filing the reply Annexure P -6, opposed the aforesaid restoration application.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.