(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. though, I am satisfied that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers and Ors., JT 2003(4) 5 SC 255, but I am constraint to observe that great injustice will be done in case the order dated 23.7.2001 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for short, the Tribunal') is allowed to stand,
(2.) The learned Tribunal has not considered the matter in correct perspective. He has altogether forgotten that these poor claimants appellants to claiming the compensation on account of the accidental death in a motor vehicle of the only bread earner of their family. The claimants are; widow of the deceased and three minor children. It is difficult to appreciate this approach of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to deal with this matter as if it is a routine matter. Otherwise also on the face of it this order is perverse. It is a harsh order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. It is a harsh order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. It appears that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has no heart. He does not think humanly. He does not appreciate the human problems. He has no justice oriented approach. He altogether ignored that courts/tribunals are there to do substantial justice.
(3.) What was the fault of these poor claimants in this case. They engaged an Advocate. If the Advocate did not attend the Court due to call of strike, this Presiding Officer of the Tribunal non-suited them in the matter where they are claiming compensation for the accidental death of the sole bread earner of their family. This approach of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is difficult to appreciate. These matters are not to be decided on technicalities. For the fault of the Advocate ultimately the sufferers are the claimants i.e. the widow and three minor children of the deceased who died in a motor accident.